nhs . Ol atellat-] mien
Digitized by O UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
<n SS eS ee ee eS ee
THE LIBRARY
AD
‘
,
SA wuilddllisiae’ 7
Snail nin’ 4,
Atay uUZs
cLasS 2207)
BooK 47 47
O]aleliat-]migelan
Digitized by’ +O l UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
a
a
eas
ts noe a
Pb,
7 »
’ ‘
’ ° + »
( ‘ a _ ea Y 4.
/ at; we. Ce” SV
- =. pene .
Ma Oy
Tie 9 a ive. /?
a - -
en: “a 4 i>: —— 4 _
iN ros Seah -
4 |
Original from
Digitized by Google __ UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Original from
Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
| IN
THE ORMULUM MANUSCRIPT
bce ake
se a“
INAUGURAL DISSERTATION
BY
SIGOURD HOLM
UPPSALA 1922
ALMQVIST & WIKSELLS BOKTRYCKERI-A,-B,
Google
Google
Preface.
My interest in the Ormulum dates back to 1916, when
the late Prof. Erik BjOrkman, my teacher in English. Philo-
logy, drew my attention to the fact that, in spite of the com-
paratively rich literature already extant on the Ormulum,
there were still many questions unsolved which made a renew-
ed investigation on the language of this important docu-
ment necessary. In the course of my work, however, I found
that such an investigation had to be preceded by another,
the result of which is the present work.
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Prof.
R. E. Zachrisson for valuable advice in the course of my
work, to my old friend Docent Erik Rooth who has
given me valuable bibliographical information and helped me
in many other respects, to Lektor J. Starck, Librarian of
Vastervik Laroverk, and to Adjunkt A. Nordberg, Libra-
rian of Sdderhamn Liroverk, for their ready assistance in
procuring the literature required.
I. am also much indebted to Mr. Henry Alexander,
_ Lektor at the University of Upsala, who has been kind
“enough to revise my style and help me read the proofs.
fa
hd Vastervik, April 1922.
g | Sigurd Holm.
hy
q oes ese
2°
a,
< —s2103. S. Holm.
Wei
r 22°36 LA.
Bibliography.
[Generally known dictionaries and texts to which references have
been made are not included.]
AELFRIc, Homilies. Ed. B. Thorpe. 1—2,. London 1843—6.
BAUMANN, I., Die Sprache der Urkunden aus Yorkshire im 15. Jauenunders.
Hoop’s Anglistische Forschungen. Heft 11, 1902.
BEDE, see Migne.
BerGSTEN, N., A Study on Compound substantives in English. Diss.
Uppsala, I91I.
Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis... Ed. P. M. Hetzenauer. Ratisbonae et
~ Romae, 1914.
ByjORKMAN, E., Scandinavian Joanwords in Middle English, 1—2. Halle,
1900, 1902. [Bjérkman, Loanw.]
, Die Namen Orrmin, Gamelyn. Herrig’s Archiv Bd, 119, pp. 33 foll.
Braunschweig, 1907.
——, Mittelenglische Personennamen auf -iz, i 2g Archiv Bd. 123,
pp. 23 foll. Braunschweig, 1909.
, Orrms Doppelkonsonanten. Anglia 37, pp. 351 foll. (estas a biblio-
graphy on Consonant Doubling in the Ormulum).
BLAckBuRN, F. A., The change of g to ¢ in the Ormulum, American
Journal of Philology 3, pp. 46 foll. Baltimore, 1882.
- BOERNER, O., Die Sprache Rob. Mannyngs of Brunne. Stud. z. engl.
Phil. 12. Halle, 1904.
BraDLey, H., Where was the Ormulum as Athenaeum 1906 1,
609; 2, 73. Cf. J. Wilson, ibid. 2, 43, 1
BraTE, E., Nordische Lehnworter im San ian Paul & Braunes Beitrage
10, pp. 1 foll.
Borsrinc, K. D., Geschichte der Ablaute der starken Zeitwortcr inner-
halb des Sadenglischen. Quellen und Forschungen 63. Strassburg,
1889.
—-—, Altenglisches Elementarbuch 1. Lautlehre. Heidelberg, 1¢02.
——, Uber die Erhaltung des @-Lautes. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik
15, pp. 101 foll. Bonn, 1904.
——, Die Schreibung des e9 im Orrmulum, Bonner Beitrage zur Angli-
stik 17, pp. 51 foll. Bonn, 1905. Cf. Reichmann, Die Eigennamen
im Orrmulum p 78, K. D. Bulbring, Anglia Beiblatt 17, Nr. 5.
Google
111
CALLENBERG, C., Layamon und Orm nach ihren Lautverhdltnissen ver-
glichen. Herrig’s Archiv Bd. 57.
Coan, O., Die Sprache in der mittelenglischen Predigtsammlung der
-Hs. Lambeth 487. Diss. Berlin, 1880.
DEUTSCHBEIN, M., Die Bedeutung der Quantitatszeichen bei Orm. Herrig’s
Archiv 126, pp. 49 foll. and 127, pp. 308 foll.
DigEHN, N., Die Pronomina im Frihmittelenglischen. Diss. Kiel, 1901.
EFFrer, H., Einfache und doppelte Konsonanten im Ormulum, Anglia 7,
(Anz.) pp. 166 foll.
Ercers, F., Die Dehnung vor dehnenden Konsonantenverbindungen. Stud.
z. engl. Phil. 26. Halle, 1907.
ExwaLt, E., Contribution to the history of Old English dialects. Lunds
Universitets Arsskrift, 1917.
Exuis, A. J., On early English pronunciation. 1—5. 1869—1889.
Emerson, O. F., A Middle English reader. London, 1919.
Enoch, The book of. Ed. R. H. Charles, London, 1893.
FuNKE, O., Kasus-Syntax bei Orrm und Lazamon. Diss. Minchen. Wien, 1907.
Guest, E., A history of English rhythms. London, 1882.
HACKMANN, G., Kirzung langer Tonvokale im Alt-, Mittel- und Neueng-
lishen. Stud. z. engl. Phil. 10. Halle, 1908.
Hag, E. E., Open and close e in the Ormulum. Modern Language Notes
8, pp. 37 foll. 1893.
Ha.enius, L., Nya Testamentets Svenske och Grekiske Concordantier,
Sthlm, 1734.
——, Svenska och Hebraiska Concordantier 6fwer Gamla Testamentet och
de Apocryphiska Bocker. Sthlm, 1742.
Hatt, J., Selections from Early Middle English, 1—2, Oxford, 1920.
[Bibliography on the O.: 2, pp. 479 foll.]
HoLrHausen, F., Wel und wed/ im Orrmulum, Anglia Beiblatt 13, pp.
16 foll. rgo2.
Homilies, Old English. 1—2. Ed. Morris. E. E. T. S. (Orig. ser.), 29. 34. 53.
London, 1868—1873.
Hoops, J., Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. Strassburg,
I911—1919. .
HOrninG, W., Die Schreibung der Hs. E des Cursor Mundi. Diss. Ber-
lin, 1906.
JESPERSEN, O., A Modern English grammar, 1—2. Heidelberg, 1909,
1914.
——, Negation in English and other languages. Det Kgl. Danske Viden-
skabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser. 1:5. Kgben-
havn, 1917.
Jorpan, R., Eigentimlichkeiten des anglischen Wortschatzes. Anglistische
Forschungen 17. Heidelberg, 1906.
Ka.uza, M., Historische Grammatik der eae Spiaene: 1—2. Berlin,
1906, 1907.
KAPHENGST, C., An essay on the Ormulum, Diss. Rostock, 1880.
KELLNER, L., Historical -outlines of English syntax. London, 1913.
Google
IV
KuiuGE, F., Geschichte der englischen Sprache. Paul’s Grundr. 17; pp. 926
foll, Strassburg, 1gor.
——, Das franzésische Element im Orrmulum. Engl. Studien 22, pp. 179 foll.
Kocu, C. F., Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. I—3. Kas-
sel und Gottingen, 1868—1878.
KOLBING, E., Zur Textkritik des Ormulum. Engl. Studien 1., pp. 1 foll.
Heilbronn: 5877. Cf. P. R. Wiilcker, Anglia 1, pp. 373 foll. Halle,
1878.
LagsexkE, B., Ein Beitrag zur Stellung des Verbums im Orrmulum. Diss.
Kiel, 1917.
_LamBertz, P., Die Sprache des Orrmulums nach der lautlichen Seite un-
tersucht, Diss. Marburg, 1904.
LAUSTERER, P., Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Artikels in den dlteren
mittelenglischen Romanzen. Diss. Kiel, 1914.°
LiInDELOF, U., Glossar zur altnordhumbrischen Evangelienabersetzung i in
der Rushworth- Handschrift. Acta Soc. Scientiarum Fennicae 22.
Helsingfors, 1897.
Linokvist, H., On the origin and history of the English pronoun se.
Anglia, 45 (1921), pp. 1 foll.
LoceMan, H., On some cases of Scandinavian influence in English 1.
The name Orrmin. Herrig’s Archiv Bd. 117, pp. 29 foll. Braun-
schweig, 1906.
LucuT, P., Lautlehre der alteren Lazamonhandschrift. Palaestra, 49.
1905.
Luick, K., Untersuchungen zur englischen Lautgeschichte. Strassburg,
1896.
—-—, Studien zur englischen Lautgeschichte. Strassburg, 1903.
——, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Fiinf Lieferungen.
Leipzig, 1914—1921.
Maack, R., Die Flexion des englischen Substantivs von 1100 bis etwa
1250. Hamburg, 1888.
MENTHEL, E., Zur Geschichte des Otfriedischen Verses im Englischen.
Anglia (Anz.) 8 (1885), pp. 49 foll.
Micne, J. P., Patrologiz latinz cursus completus, Bd. 32—47: Augustinus.
Parisiis 1845—49; Bd. 90>—95: Beda. 1850—51.
MonickE, C. H., Notes and queries on the Ormulum. 1—2. Leipzig,
185 2—3.
Morssach, L., Mittelenglische Grammatik 1. Halle, 1896.
Napier, A. S., Contributions to Old English lexicography. Trans. Phil.
Soc. 1906, pp. 265 —358.
——, Notes on the orthography of the Ormulum. E. E. T. S. (Orig. ser.)
103, pp. 71 foll. London, 1894. [Napier, Notes.]
New Testament, The, transl. from the Latin, in the year 1380, by John
Wiclif. Ed. H. H. Baber. London, 1810.
Novum Testamentum Latine, edit. Nestle. Stuttgart, 1921.
Novum Testamentum Latine, sec. ed. S. Hieronymi ad cod. mscr. fidem,
Rec. J. Wordsworth et H. White. Oxonii, 1911.
Google
Vv
Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi latine, sec. ed. Hiero-
nymi. Rec. J. Wordsworth et H. White. P. 1; 2:1; 3:1. Oxonii
1889—1915.
Nojp, R., The vocalism of Romanic words in Chaucer. Diss. Upsala,
1919.
Ormulum, The. Ed. R. M. White. 1—2. Oxford, 1852.
» » » R. Holt. 1—2. Oxford, 1878. Cf. Kélbing, Engl.
Stud. 2, pp. 494 foll., Liter. Centralblatt 1880, pp. 787 foll., anne
bericht for German. Phil., 1879, p. 157.
PaBst, F., Die Sprache der mittelenglischen Reimchronik des Robert von
Gloucester 1. Diss Berlin, 1889.
—--, Flexionsverhaltnisse bei Robert von Gloucester. Anglia 13, pp. 202,
245 foll.
Peacock, R. B., On some leading characteristics of Northumbrian. Trans.
Phil. Soc. 1862—3, pp. 232 foll.
PHILIPPSEN, M., Die Deklination in den ‘Vices and Virtues’. Diss. Kiel,
1911.
REICHMANN, H., Die Eigennamen im Orrmulum. Stud. z. engl. Phil. 25.
Halle, 1906.
Reinicke, E., Uber den Gebrauch des bestimmten Artikels in der eng-
lischen Prosa des 16. Jahrhunderts. Diss. Halle, 1915.
SacHse, R., Das unorganische e¢ im Orrmulum, zugleich eine Unter-
suchung uber die Flexionsweise Orrm’s. Diss. Halle, 1881. Cf.
Gnerlich, Engl. Studien 6, pp. 266 foll.
SatntsBuryY, G. A., Historv of English Prosody 1. London, 1906.
SARRAZIN, G., Uber die Quellen des Orrmulum. Engl. Stud. 6, pp. 1 foll.
Scuon, E., Die Bildung des Adjektivs im Altenglischen. Kieler Stud. z.
engl. Phil. 2. Kiel, 1905.
ScHuLzeE, W., Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. (Abh. d. K. Ges.
d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., N. F. Bd. 5:5.) Berlin, 1914.
SIEVERS, E., Angelsachsische Grammatik. Halle, 1898.
SKEAT, W. W., Twelve Facsimiles of Old English Manuscripts, Oxford,
1892.
SLETTENGREN, E., Contribution to the study of aphzretic words in Eng
lish, Diss. Lund, 1912. Cf. W. Franz, Engl. Studien 47, pp. 231 foll.
STADLMANN, A., Die Sprache der mittelenglischen Predigtsammlung in
der Handschrift Lambeth 487. Wiener Beitrage z. engl. Phil. Bd. 50.
Wien und Leipzig, 1921.
ST. AUGUSTINE, see Migne.
STeinuorr, E., Uber den Gebrauch des Artikels in dén englischen Werken
John Gowers. Diss. Kiel. Heidelberg, 1916.
STRANDBERG, O., The rime-vowels of Cursor Mundi. Diss. Upsala, 1919.
SweeT, H., A new English grammar 1. Oxford, 1892.
Tuayer, J. H., A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament... Edin-
burgh, 1898.
THOMPSON, M., The history of English handwriting. Trans. Bibliograph.
Soc. Vol. 5. London, 1901.
Google
VI
Tutns, B., Das Verbum bei Orrm. Diss. Leipzig. Weida, 1909.
Vocabularies, Anglo-Saxon and Old English. Ed. by T. Wright. Re-ed.
by R. P. Wilcker. London 1884. [Wright-Wilcker.]
Wackerzapp, A., Geschichte der Ablaute der starken ZeitwOrter innerhalb
des Nordenglischen. Diss. Minster, 1890.
WeInMANN, P., Uber den Gebrauch des Artikels im Orrmulum. Diss.
Kiel, 1920.
WELLs, J. E, A manual of the writings in Middle English 1050—1400.
New Haven, 1916.
WetTzLarR, A., Die Sprache... der nordenglischen Homiliensammlung.
Diss. Freiburg, 1907.
WeyeL, F., Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Infinitivs im Ormulum, Pro-
gramm. Meiderich, 1896.
Wi1p, F., Die sprachlichen Eigentimlichkeiten der wichtigeren Chaucer-
Handschriften. Wiener Beitrage z. engl. Phil. Bd. 44.
Wricat, J., Old English grammar. Oxford, 1908.
WRIGHT-WULCKER, see Vocabularies.
Wottirinc, E., Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen, 1—2.
Bonn, 1894, 1901.
WyLp, H. C., History of initial 4 in Middle and Modern English Dialects.
Otia Merseiana 2, pp. 129 foll. Igor.
——, A short history of English. London, 1921.
ZACHRISSON, R. E., A Contribution to the study of Anglo-Norman in-
fluence on English placenames. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, 1909.
ZENKE, W., Synthesis and Analysis im Orrmulum. Stud. z. engl. Phil.
40. Halle, 1910. a
ZUPITZA-SCHIPPER, Alt- u. Mittelenglisches Ubungsbuch. 11. Aufl. Wien
u. Leipzig 1915. [Aus dem ‘Orrmulum’: pp. 109—112.]
Google
Abbreviations.
[Abbreviations of references to texts used in dictionaries are not in-
cluded.]
acc, m= accusative.
acc. to = according to.
adj. == adjective.
adv, = adverb.
Angl. =» Anglian.
art. = article.
c. = century.
col. = column.
coll. = columns.
cons, = consonant.
D., Ded. = Dedication of the Or-
mulum. .
def. = definite.
dat. = dative.
dial. = dialect.
edit. = editor, edition; refers to Holt
and Holt’s edition.
E. E. T. S.= Early English Text
Society.
EMidl. = East Midland.
EModE = Early Modern English.
er, == erasure(s), erased.
fem. = feminine.
gen. = genitive.
Goth. == Gothic.
h. = hand.
H. = Holt, the 2nd edit. of the Or-
mulum.
illeg. = illegible.
inf. = infinitive.
insert. = insertion, inserted.
K = K6lbing.
1. = line.
Lat. == Latin.
Li = Lindisfarne Gospels.
Il. = lines.
marg, = margin, marginal.
niasc. = masculine.
ME = Middle English.
ModE = Modern English.
NED = New English Dictionary.
neut. = neuter.
nom. = nominative.
O. = Orm or Ormulum.
obj. = object.
OE = Old English.
Olcel. = Old Icelandic.
OLG. = Old Low German.
O. Scand. = Old Scandinavian.
P. = Preface of the Ormulum.
part. == participle.
pers. = person.
p. mi. = prima manu.
prep. = preposition.
pret. = preterite.
prob, = probably.
refl. = reflexive.
R! = Rushworth!.
R? = Rushworth’.
sg., sing. = singular.
s. h. == second hand.
Ss. m, = secunda manu.
t. = text.
W. = White, the 1st edit.
Ormulum.,
WG = West Germanic.
WS = West Saxon.
== instance(s).
~ = by the side of.
of. the
White's edt-
tion,
Introduction.
In the year 1852 the Ormulum was first edited by R.
M. White, Professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of
Oxford. It was no doubt an excellent work for its time
when Anglo-Saxon professors were sometimes defined as
«persons willing to learn Anglo-Saxon» (Dict. of Nat. Bio- ©
graphy vol..LXI, p. 74). In an extensive preface (86 pp.)
the edit. gives a survey of the history of English Philology
with special reference to the O. (= Ormulum). After reporting
the little that is known about the earlier fate of the MS he
points out its chief orthographical, phonological, and metrical?
peculiarities. He also enters upon the question of its date
and dialect, and comes to the conclusion that the O. was
probably written early in the 13 century in the neighbour-
hood of Peterborough. The Preface is followed by a careful
and detailed description of the MS, which among other things
contains the following important remark (p. LXXXvVII) with
regard to the scribes of the MS: «A second hand appears
to have been used in the marginal corrections and in the
transcript of some of the inserted leaves; a third in supply- |
ing the MS note at the fiftieth text, and also texts at the
respective Homilies; and a fourth in a marginal addition at
1 On this point W. follows Guest (p. 507), who holds the conven-
tional view, then adopted by ten Brink and Schipper, that O. is the first
imitator of the Latin rhythm called the «common metre». This opinion
has subsequently been opposed by Trautmann (Anglia V, Anz,, p. 124)
and Menthel (Anglia VIII, Anz., pp. 70 foll.). The latter, who has in-
vestigated this matter methodically, comes to the conclusion that in the
formation of his long line O.(= Orm) has not imitated any foreign
metre but used a native one, ,
Google
1X
col. 230. The three last-mentioned hands have been further
described in the notes.»
A fairly good idea of the MS may be formed from four
facsimiles, the first being a fly leaf on which the runic
alphabet has been entered, the 2"¢ and the 3°¢ containing Il.
3315—3370, 3397—3429, D. 1—16 of the English text, and
the 4™ the Latin text LXVIII—LXX.
As to the text itself it can by no means be said to
satisfy the requirements of present-day scholarship. There
are many errors, both misreadings and misprints, which may
be found almost on every page. Besides, the many correc-
tions which have been made afterwards (pp. 659—664) make
the’ use of this text very inconvenient. The abbreviations,
the most usual of which is a macron over a vowel to denote ©
a following m or m, are never indicated. All through the MS
certain consonants, m, 2, r, k (very often), ¢, 4 3 (more
seldom) are written above the line over others. This pe-
culiarity in writing, to which the edit. (= editor) should at
least have drawn attention, is rather important to every
student of the O., as these superpositions may be suspected
to be corrections in the first or second h. (cf. chapt. V, 4).
The text distinguishes between z and 7, contrary to the MS.
On the other hand both # and @ are used in the latter (cf.
Preface XCII), whereas the former always has p. The edit.
has often confused the shortening sign (breve) with the mark
of abbreviation for 7.
The edit. (= edition) is also enriched with notes and a
glossary. In the former, which do not seem to have been
observed by scholars to the extent they merit, most! of
the extremely frequent alterations and corrections have been
described. Often, although unfortunately far from always,
the edit. has also indicated, by means of designations such
as p. m. (prima manu), s. m. (secunda manu) or the letter
B., in what hand he considers the corrections to have been
made. Here are also printed the many legible passages
which have been erased. In addition the edit. has bestowed
much labour on trying to find out the authorities from which
O. has taken his naive allegorical interpretations of Scripture.
1 The frequent #-insertions are not mentioned; cf. pp. 20 foll.
Google
x
Although he may have ascribed too many of these to S.
Augustine and Aelfric, his remarks on this point must have
been of great value as a general guide to the author of
«Uber die Quellen des O.». This scholar (Sarrazin), who has
by no means exhaustively treated this important subject,
seems to have gone to the other extreme, assuming too
often and on too weak grounds that Bede has been the
source. a he
The glossary, which from the point of view of etymology
and explanation of meanings, is antiquated and often contains
misprints or downright blunders such as darrh given as pret.
of derenn or cunnepp as another form for cann, is, in spite
of all these shortcomings, beyond all doubt the most valuable
part of W.’s edit. Here are included not only all the words
appearing in the O. but also almost all the different gram-
matical forms and constructions, and most of their occur-
rences are referred to by line or page. Of the verb don
alone, for instance, there are over 200 records, of the adj.
god about 150, etc. This does not imply, however, that it
is absolutely infallible or complete. With regard to statistical
details it is by no means to be relied on, as has been done
by some scholars who have worked at the O. Effer and
above all Reichmann are praiseworthy exceptions in this
respect. Zenke only gives the number of the forms without
any references, which would have been desirable, at least
in some important cases. But, with the assistance of W.'s
glossary, a fairly good idea of O.’s phonology and accidence
may be formed.
It is easily understood that the editing of so great a
MS as the O. must have been a very laborious task, especially
if performed in the way described here. We have therefore
every reason to be grateful to W. for having devoted half
his life — the editing of the O. is said to have taken him
nearly twenty years' — to such important preparatory
researches on the O.
1 Dict. of Nat. Biography, vol. LXI, p. 74. — According to the same
authority W.’s edit. was criticized shortly after it had been issued, by a
German professor of the name of Monicke in a work entitled «Notes and
Queries on the O.» 2. Teile. Leipzig 1853—4, to which however, I have
not had access.
Google
‘XI
In 1877 there appeared a-collation of the text with the
MS by the German scholar E. K6lbing (Engl. Stud. I).
This collation contains no less than about 1100 textual cor-
rections and explanatory additions, of which about 800 claim
to be corrections of erroneous readings or misprints. The
following year it was severely ctiticized by K.’s (= Kélbing’s)
fellow-countryman P. R. Wiilcker in the periodical Anglia
(I., pp. 374—5), then newly started, but this article, although
very polemic in form, is based only on assumptions and
does not even make an attempt to prove that K.’s readings
were incorrect. Still, the reviewer arrives at the following
bold conclusion: »Der Wert dieser arbeit von K. ist also
sehr illusorisch! Nach wie vor kann man alle grammatischen
betrachtungen nur auf die ausgabe von White griinden!e
To the surprise of the two rival German scholars,
however, the 2"¢ edit. of the O. appeared the same year in
England. The edit. was Rev. R. Holt, who, according to
his own statement, (Holt’s edit. p. v) «carefully corrected the
text by collation with the MS». This edit., which is the
one still in use, was not very favourably received by the
critics. K., who after his revision of W.’s edit. was naturally
qualified to judge of this work, subjected it to a thorough
critical examination in his periodical (Engl. Stud. II, pp.
494—499), the results of which were briefly as follows:
(1) The new edit. had not made use of K.’s collation.
(2) about 350 of the old errors remained.
(3) H.’s (=Holt’s) direct statements with regard to the
readings very rarely differed from K.’s.
(4) K. admits that H. altered W.’s text on many points
where K. was silent.
(5) He (K.) is of the opinion that many errors have been
overlooked by both of them.
(6) The Preface and the Notes of W.’s edit. had been
reprinted unaltered, with the exception of foot-note 117 (p.
LXXI).
The only part of the work which was acknowledged by
K. to be an improvement was the glossary, which he declared
to have been thoroughly revised. Similar opinions of the
same work were expressed in two other reviews, viz. Jahres-
Google
Kolbing’s
collation.
Holt’s edit-
ton.
XII
bericht fiir Germ. Phil. 1879, p. 157 and Lit. Centralbl. 1880,
p. 787. | |
Under such circumstances it is a hopeless task for any
scholar to draw any linguistic conclusions from investigations
based on a text-which 40 years ago was considered to be
so unreliable. On the points; for instance, where K. and H.
or even K., H., and W. differ with regard to the text, many
scholars have been obliged to content themselves with
adducing the various readings without any discussion. Thus
Effer, Lambertz, Deutschbein, Eilers, Zenke. In order to
clear up these uncertain points I undertook another revision
of the MS in the summer of 1920, the result of which is the
present collation. This does not claim to be a thorough
revision of the whole MS, which the comparatively short
time I had at my disposal did not allow of, but it aims in
the first place at giving the form of the MS where the three
authorities mentioned disagree, and secondly at supplementing
W.’s and K.'s notes with regard to the numerous alterations
and erasures which have been made in the MS. The latter
task was all the more necessary as W., when the same cor-
rections return, often contents himself with stating that «as
the same alteration frequently occurs, the present notice of
it may be sufficient».!
As is seen from this new collation, the severe criticism
which H.'s edit. met with is only too true, whereas, on the
other hand, K.’s readings have proved to be on the whole
correct. Although it cannot be denied that with regard to
the text the 2™4 edit. is a great improvement compared with
the first, many errors having been removed, it leaves much
to be desired. Of about 1000 textual alterations and additional
notes which have been made in my collation, over 400 agree
with K.’s, Only in a comparatively few cases — about 20 —
have I considered H.’s readings to be correct. Some of the
errors which remain in H.’s edit. are very grave:
The stroke over z in kine 10732, 10779, stue(ss) 10779,
10979, 11031, winenn 10981, 11016, which is an abbreviation
for 2, has been mistaken for the breve. (Cf. K., Engl. Stud. IT,
1 See edit. notes on Il. 2208, 5713, 6605, 9308, 9599, 12379.
Google
XII
p. 495.) Notice also shawenn for shapenn 10940. Besides there
are many disfiguring misprints which do not occur in W.'s
edit. The letters # and , for instance, have often been
confused: £e337ve 7465, puss 13556, Patt 16086, pere 19908,
or sh@che 13699, 18782, fosstless 13940, 15985, Fose@p 8507.
Other instances are pa sel/f for fe sellf 5288, space for spacc
8657, pass (misreading?) for wass 14262. In other respects
all the inconveniences with regard to the text which are
found in W.’s edit., remain in H.'s.
As was pointed out by K., little has been added to the
Preface and Notes, which with insignificant changes have
been literally reprinted. The most valuable facsimile in the
1* edit., viz. the 2°4, has been excluded, whereas one reference
to it remains (foot-note 103, p. LXIv). Another inadvertence
of the same kind is found in foot-note 105, p. LXV, where
the Addit. and Correct. in W.’s edit. mentioned above, which
H. himself has inserted in the text or the notes in the
2™4 edit., are referred to (noticed by Weyel p. 2, foot-note).
The omission of a statement in W.’s edit. to the effect that
the symbols # and wv are both found in the MS may be said
to be an improvement, as the former symbol is always used
for v (see collat. p. xvii). But in spite of that H. always prints
v, as is the case in the 1*t edit. Except the foot-note discussed
by K. the only additions made by H. are foot-note, p. LXxvil
and the notes on Il. 1537, 2364, 4128, 4522, 5573, 5610,
5619, 6043, 6338, 6385, 10398, 13597.
The additions to the glossary, on which H. seems to
have concentrated his powers (cf. Pref. p. vi), are chiefly of
an etymological kind and may have been of great value at
the time when the edit. was published — cf., however, K.’'s
criticism Engl. Stud. II, pp. 497—9 — but unfortunately
they cannot be said to make up for drawbacks which might
have been avoided by means of greater care. Although che
has verified every single reference in the Glossary», (Pref.
p. V) many errors which have been corrected in the text
remain in the glossary, e. g. 1722, 10497 del, daless, (cf
W.’s edit.), gloss. p. 440 del, deless, 2748, 2871, .2897
strengedd, gloss. strengedd and strenngedd, 3708 full wrec-
chelike, gloss. p. 557 forr wreccheltke, 4628 unnclente33c, gloss.
Google
XIV
p. 540 unnclenn-, 11063—4 30/da33, gloss, p. 572 30llda33,
11356, 12038 skapeles, gloss. p. 519 -/e@ss, 16978 sunnderrrun,
gloss. p. 526 sumderr- and others. (Cf. Sachse, p. 2, foot-n. 4).
Further all words occurring in the erased text are not given
in the gloss.: drap(p) vol. II, p. 378, minde ib. pp. 394, setenn
part. pret. of szttenn ib. p. 404 (not recorded elsewhere),
unnyep ib. p. 349. onndlet ib. p. 354. Consequently the
glossary must be used with great caution. It may also be
remarked that it would have been an advantage if the
references to the homilies (H.) had been quoted exactly by
line and not by page.
From what has been said about H.'s edit. it follows that
it is unsatisfactory in many respects, and that a new edition
of the O., one of the most important ME documents, with
a complete revision of text, notes and glossary, is greatly
needed.
Extractsand » Of the many extracts that have been made from the O.,
Jacsimiles, there are some that have been carefully revised from the
MS. One which may be said to be ideal in all respects, is
that published by Napier together with a facsimile (E. E. T.
S. 103), and comprising ll. 7810~—-7847, 7869—7902. A good
extract is also made by Hall (Part. J, p. 112, ll. 3662— 40009),
wha has carefully distinguished between g (the symbol in-
vented by O.), 3, and g and italicized the consonants which
stand for abbreviations. It is only to be regretted that super-
position of consonants is zof indicated. A third extract which |
is fairly reliable’ is found in Zupitza-Schipper, Alt. u.
‘Mittelengl. Ubungsbuch and contains Preface (1—106) and
of the Homilies Il. 15§38—15635.
Besides the facsimiles already mentioned the following
have been used: Il. 1155—1173, 1213—1230 in Skeat, Twelve
Facsimiles of OE MSS Plate IV, Il. 6412—6427 in Thomp-
son p. 251.
Finally it may be mentioned that I have had the follow-
ing passages photographed: 565—586, 1036—1045, 4166—
4193, 4224—4255, 47744783, 5828—5861, 7471 — 7480, 7775
-—7783, 9035—9062, 9252-9273, 9317—9330, 9694—9722,
' Note, however, -dad fcr -dap P. 5, -tes for -tess 15574.
Google
XV
9781 — 9802, 10291 —10300, 10390— 10416, 10437— 10461, 15476
—15520, 15538—15562, 15592—15622, 15642—15657.! .
The remarkable and interesting statement made by the Previous
first edit. with regard to the scribes of the MS (see above) /7ea¢ment.
has not been taken much notice of by scholars, although
from 1852 up till now a whole literature on the O. has
grown up. In his collation K. makes a few stray remarks
on this question, observing on his revision that z in pz is
often inserted in second h. (p. 2), and the same ‘subject is
only incidentally touched upon by Sachse (pp. 17 foot-n. 4,
20 foot-n. 15). The only writer who, as far as I am aware,
has drawn attention to the above-mentioned remarks of the
edit. is Reichmann in his treatise ‘Die Eigennamen im O.’
(§ 39), where, with reference to W.’s description of the MS,
he assumes that the first scribe’s composition was corrected
in a second, -perhaps in a third h. (= hand), and states that
in many cases inadvertencies and careless spellings. have
actually been corrected by means of insertions in the margin.
He then continues (p.87): »So hatte die hs. urspriinglich Galeam
fir Galtleam LT XXX, Mazarene fiir Nazarene LT XXXVII,
Fudorum fir Fudeorum LT XLVI, Bapaptista fir Baptista
LT LXXxX, v. 8292 stand urspriinglich Palate (fiir Pe/ate) in
der hs., aber das erste @ ist teilweise ausradiert und z dar-
iiber geschriebeni In Gallew 8473 ist das w iiber einem
ausradierten o hingeschrieben. In v. 5941 ist die letzte silbe
von Bapptisste ausradiert und am rand wieder hinzugefiigt.«
These supposed instances of corrections in another h. than
the first are, however, not very well chosen, as with the
exception of the last three they happen to be emendations
made by the edit., as is also indicated in his notes.
On my revision of the MS I ascertained that, on the Asm of the
whole, W. was right in his statement concerning the scribes. present work.
A first h. A. (=the author) who has written the chief part
of the work, may be traced right through the MS; a second
h. B. has then corrected A.’s work and made some addi-
tions. A few passages are due to a third h. C. Some
arbitrary and inconsistent alterations seem to have made by
1 For these photographs I am indebted to the Bodleian Library,
Oxford.
Google
XVI
one or more later scribes. As it might be expected that
many of the inadvertencies as regards the orthography,
phonology and accidence of the O. are due to the different
scribes just mentioned, I have made all the alterations and
additions found in the MS the subject of.an investigation
intending to show
(1) what passages (corrections or additions) are due to
the different scribes,
(2) their purpose,
(3) to what extent these scribes differ from each other
from a linguistic point or view.
Methods of The difficulties of the task I set myself turned out to
investiga- be greater than I suspected, especially as the MS has not
ton. been accessible to me more than once, and the notes I then
made and considered to be satisfactory, proved in the course
of my work to be far from sufficient. The handwritings of
A. and B., who are contemporaneous, are often (not always)
very hard to distinguish, at least for a non-expert in hand-
writing. The indications given on this point by W. in his
notes have therefore been of great assistance to me. But
many corrections and insertions are left undecided-by him,
and others which he ascribes to B. must for linguistic or
other reasons have been made /. m. or in h. C. He is
therefore not always to be relied on, and his notes must be
used with caution. But when for-paleographical reasons I
have come to the same result as W. with regard to the
scribe, I consider that a sufficient criterion. When that is
not the case, recourse has been had to other tests. Some
of them are linguistic, based on alterations whose authorship
has been decided in the former way. In the course of my
work I found that a characteristic feature of a great many
safe B.-corrections, was that they had been made for theo-
logical reasons. Consequently, whenever it can be shown
that a correction reflects other theological opinions it may
be suspected to be due to B. Sometimes the source may
give us a clue. —
Various sorts From a technical point of view the alterations found in
of altera- the O. are as follows:
tions.
Google
XVII
(1) Text has been completely scraped out and replaced
by other text (t. [= text] over erasure).
(2) Text has been erased by means of the pen being
drawn through the lines, (erased t.), a mode of erasing thanks
to which the erased t. is for the most part legible. Some-
times nothing is substituted for the passage erased (erasures
without substitutions), but generally fresh t. has been
inserted above or beneath the line, in the margin or at the
top or the bottom of the col. (=column) (marginal in-
sertions).
(3) Text has been added either in a vacant space in
the coll. (columns) (marginal additions) or on small leaves
which have been inserted for this particular purpose (in-.
serted leaves),
11 — 22103. S. Holm.
Google
Collation.
In the following collation, which has reference only to
the English t., no consideration has been taken to the distri-
bution of the symbols f and d (cf. edit. p. LXxXx) as being
of no importance to our investigation, to the erasures and
reinsertions of o in the combination ¢o, dealt with in Chapt.
III, and to the symbols used for g and g, which have been
treated of by Napier. It may be pointed out, however, that
the former symbol, specially invented by O., is found in
B.- as well as A.-t (cf. p. 102). Superpositions of letters (cf.
p. 89) have been indicated only in sporadic important cases.
When my readings have agreed with K.’s, this is indicated
by K.
With regard to the letters and other marks used in the
MS, a few remarks beyond those made by the edit. (pp.
LXXIX—LXXX) are required. The printed t. distinguishes
between 7 (consonant) and z (vowel), contrary to the MS, the
same symbol, viz. 7, always being found in both functions
(printed t. Fuda, inn, MS zuda, inn). Nor does the MS
distinguish between z (vowel) and vw (labiodental fricative)
which are both represented by z#, which as a capital takes
the form V. Both W. and H. have printed zw in the former
case and vw in the latter, which has caused much misunder-
standing (cf. Lambertz §§ 258, 260, Reichmann § 26 p. 80).
Capitals are not used in proper names except in some of
those beginning with MW (Marye, Mabpew; but moysesess
7881), but they are regularly found in all words at the be-
ginning of every half-verse.
As a rule abbreviations are sparely used. The most
common is a stroke over a letter to designate a following
m or n. The double m is often denoted by two strokes,
Google
XIX
e. g. 42, su. Occasionally the same marks of contraction
stand for -enn, e. g. utnumliz 2599 (see K. on this 1.) or
utnumliz, 12283. (see K. p. 11), which are to be interpreted
utnumennitz, The ending -er(r) in affterr, allterr, winnterr
etc. is often abbreviated by the mark 7 above the letter z
occasionally by the same mark doubled, e. g. nossterr },
5767. That the single mark is also meant to denote -err is
seen from spellings affterr, allterr written in full. Probably
walle which occurs only in the abbreviated form is to be
interpreted wadlterr; cf. K.’s remarks on II. 138, 515. The
p-curl stands for pro- in prophete, propitiatoriumm. The
conj. aznd is as a rule abbreviated as 7, but sometimes
written in full. pb = fatt is often found by the side of the
full form. The vowels a, z, 0 above mee , denoting va, rt, YO
meepeeive’y are rarely met with, e. g. est— crist 15600, 15614,
joer 15643 = frowwenn. Once I have found p = fer in
uipa == uipera 9760.
D. 7. takenn. K. P. 7. amminadap. K.
D. 12. bi ins. h, K, oe After dz¢we- a letter
D. 62. well. K. ee tes
D. 107. wel. K. P. 66. Afterr salemann be
D. 109. writenn. er. K.
D. 162. fisste. K. P. 83. dep.
D. 203. hiss. 1], 10. éokenn in margin for
D. 237. frofren. K. sellfenn er. K. 7
D. 262. opmen. K. 1. 31. peoww; edit. peoww.
D..286. hiss. K. 1. 78. After this |. in er.
D. 298. winenn =winnenn; t. edit. vol. II, p. 349 1. 4;
the stroke over z is a lit- K. reads wass; edit. has ass;
tle rounded but K. is right probably edit. is right.
when saying that the breve l. 107. purrp godd. K.
is always more rounded. 1. 156. childen. K.
D. 318. paz. K. h
D. 322, D. 331. In these 1. 166. follzep. K.
ll. a later h. has altered ¢. in ], 185. sunes. K.
tiss into a p. K. l. 231. elysabeth. K.,
Google
AX
1. 291. wifmann altered from
wimmann in s. h.
ll. 294, 298. zsvaale. K.
]. 311. 22 = hinn.
l. 321. See edit. note.
l. 336. es3per. K.
1. 350. wz. K.
1, 353. add; the third /add-
ed in later h., as K. remarks;
the reason is that the first /
is hidden in a fold, not visible
at first sight.
]. 487. ¢wa in margin. K.
1. S11. sprugenn. K.
l. 523. ess. K.
1. 540. W. has Zacaryass,
K. gakaryas, and H. and MS
Zakaryass.
1. 590. W. has floccess, K.
flockes, H. and MS flockess.
]. 621. hess. K.
]. 830. gluterrnesse. K.
1. 832. drunkennesse. K.
]. 842. W. has Jssvaeless,
K. zsvaeles, H. and MS zs-
rag@less.
1. 863. forp.
m4
l. 894. uz.
1. 974. forr. K.
h
1], 1055. K. reads hehtesst,
W. and H. hehzhesst, MS has
h
hehyesst.
]. 1129.. wrap. K.
l. 1170. -¢e33¢ in margin,
-MeSSE er.
1. 1188. onnfop. K.
1.1235. Bliderrnemanness.K.
Google
], 1268. fz; » in s. h.;
is somewhat blotted but quite
legible; cf. K.
l. 1290. J/e@rest. K.
I. 1311. K. has godes; I
read godess as W. and H.
1. 1312. zss. K.
]. 1357. -cunnd written twice,
i once. K.
1. 1370. all cwtcc; edit. has
omitted a@//. K.
l. 1521. créstess;
note and K.
1. 1531. zt¢. K.
1, 1537. Edit.’s/@fe emended
from /afe; see edit.’s note and
K.
1. 1544. -e33¢ written over
-nesse er. ins. h. Cf. K.
1. 1545. grammcund. K.
1. 1552. pz mele. K.
]. 1582. @dmodltz. K.
r n
l. 1588. perrfling. K.
l. 1607. In fz and # an zx,
although faint, is written above
l. in s. h.
see edit.’s
n
], 1614. pz; ” ins. h.
], 1625. wa; 2 ins. h. K.
1. 1667. After this ]. in er.
t. edit. vol. II, p. 353, 1. 4.
onnfanngenn.
1. 1730. god pwert ut; K.
erroneously. reads 30d etc.
1. 1734. Aer in margin in
s. h. K. prob. for -eum er.
1. 1737. an full in s.
-like er. K,
h.,
1. 1758. hallze. K.
1. 1768. -de33¢ over er. K.
], 1812. om. K.
]. 1813. After this ]. in er.
t. edit. vol. II, p. 353 1. 4.
arithhun.
]. 1856. W. has e3he, K.
h
exhhe, H. ejhne; MS has ejxe.
1. 1908. follzenn over er.
l. 1913. fifte. K.
l. 1934. unwemmedd.
]. 1995. W. has Foseppess,
K. zosepes, H. Fosepess; MS
has zosepess.
1. 2006. unnderrstan- denn
== -stanndenn; K. erroneously
reads -stan-denn.
l. 2016. Before elle hel is
written. K.
1. 2041. modzlz3. K.
l. 2055. Between 62 and
wepp- some letters er. K.
l. 2058. wass. K,
l. 2073. Ain. K.
e
1. 2080. fossinn = fosstrenn.
K
]. 2084. After this I. in er.
edit. vol. II, p. 3541. 3. sohkhze.
l. 4. onndlet. K.
l. 2113. For.
], 2134. sesteorne. K.; 0 near-
ly scraped out.
1], 2137. stelle. K.
]. 2203. anan. K.
1. 2216. Lesu = Tesumm. K.
], 2217. forr. K.
Google
XXI
l. 2225. dauidd.
]. 2291. Annd. K.
1.2364. Edit.’s zbbennemend-
ed from /tbden; see edit.'’s —
note and K.
l. 2412. A letter er. after
sammnenn. K.
l. 2423. @ inn onnzen al-
tered from d@. K.
l. 2469-70. shollde—wise
over er. K.
l. 2474. After this 1. in
er. t. edit. vol. II, p. 356 1.
3. 3efenn. ll. 6—7. 3alte.
1. 2478. After this 1. in er.
t. edit. vol. II, p. 356 1. 1.
pohh; edit. inoh. \. 2. mazzp-
had.
l. 2519. wzss to fulle sop
in margin in s. h. for alls uss
sex3p Be boc er.; K. reads... |
seggp etc.
l. 2599. utuum-ltz. K.
1]. 2615. Swed. K.
1. 2693. mann; edit. nan. K.
], 2713. W. has zss, K. zs,
H. and MS zazss.
]. 2723: darp. K.
1. 2727. gife.
1. 2854. Accent on @ in
Marye er. K.
m
]. 2911. 3emen. K.
h
1. 2959.
l. 2969.
l. 3006.
er. K.
]. 3020. halts.
]. 3021 is over er. K.
MUZENN.
lus-tess. K.
se33de he wiss over
XXII
l. 3053. Off haltz gast over
er. K.
l. 3080. After fess some
letters er. K.
], 3161. J; edit. Jun. K.
1. 3163. smonepp. K.
l. 3192. wel in margin for
-enn in sellfenn er. in s. h.;
cf. K. ;
1. 3225. a; min marg.ins.h.
l. 3230. hard. K.
l. 3242. het.
l. 3277. summ.
]. 3287. pentg = pening. K.
1, 3289 is over er. K.
l. 3291.. Patt altered from
ba. K.
ll. 3308, 3310. Azugess.
1. 3311. debpleemess. K.
]. 3313. See 1. 3308.
n n
l. 3320 wende-, K.: wennde-.
nr
l. 3321. a; 2 prob. ins. h.
l. 3428. 3e¢.
1. 3444. W. has &znyzess, K.
kinges, H. and MS kingess.
1. 3503. Marge. K.
l. 3535. I read peowwess
as edit.; K. has peowwes.
l. 3537. ¢uge written twice
in margin in late h. K. Cf.
edit.’s note.
]. 3568. Méarze. K.
1. 3579. W. and H. have
3ceorrnenn, K. geornenn, MS
has 3e0rnen.
l. 3583. onn to lokenn over
er. K.
Google
l. 3633. sop in margin for
pe er. in s. h. K.
1. 3687. full naru over er. K.
l. 3725. all, edit. alle.
l. 3734. kald over er. K.
l. 3742. 2 in pinenn over
er. K.
l. 3743. 2 in x@fre altered
from 7. K.
l. 3744. godd warrp over er.
h
- 3746.
- 3750.
l lahyre.
]
1. 3758.
]
]
]
unornelts.
cris-tenndom. K.
sett. K.
dazzes. K.
grislty. K.
. 3796.
. 3810.
. 3842.
l. 3847. a; 2 in s. h.
1. 3870. awwredd. K.
l. 3889. hére.
1. 3909. After /in walde / er.
l. 3929. sheorte; o nearly
scraped out; as to @33 see
edit.’s note on |. 3383. |
l. 3933. sawles. K.
1. 3955. @33 in margin for
-e in gode er. K.
l. 3969. See 1. 3955.
l. 3978. enngell—-nahht over
er. K.
l. 3994. greditle33C.
l. 4000. Between f and a
in Patt some letter er. K.
ll. g4oo8—g in marginin s. h.;
in the former |. gz/e; edit. 32/e.
l. 4120. fra; edit. swa.
l. 4139. all; K. has al.
l. 4156. After ‘daz3’ p datt
er. K.
l. 4166. After this 1, in er.
t. edit. vol. II, p. 359 1.7 a
dissyllabic word illegible; 1
suggest foward.
l. 4186. -e- in vesste- altered
from / or Ss.
l. 4201. ¢ikenn. K.
1. 4243. -dpe in hellpe over
er. K.
l. 4254. zvzfmenn altered
from wzmmenn in s. h.
1. 4255. J"; mz in s. h.
l. 4273. o 3ure er.; edit. z
Bure.
l. 4303. mm in nemmunenn
over er. K.
l. 4307. affter. K.
l. 4331. After 233 4 letters
er. K.
]. 4344. herr. K.
1. 4377. téne. K.
l. 4388. -cvord wass over
er. K.
l. 4422. tin herrte over er. K.
l. 4455. 42f7 over er.
l. 4458. -23 in weterrlt3 over
l. 4468. ani mann over er.
]. 4480. sweére. K.
. 4489. all over er.
l. 4492. unnclennessess; thus
edit.; K. reads -clenessess.
l. 4508. ganngenn. K.
1. 4510. wenenn. K.
l. 4527. “2 in welle over er.
—
l. 4535. After this |. in er.
XXIII
t. edit. vol. II, p. 363 |. 2. 3aw;
edit. 32.
l. 4560. greadz3- in margin
for 32ferr er.
l. 4570. 22 in mann over er.
]. 4606. majz3dennhad. K.
1. 4622. -2e33c in margin for
illeg. er.
]. 4628. -2e33c over er.
1. 4648. 32ferrnessée er.; cf.
edit.’s note.
l. 4706. W. and H. have
grimm-, K. reads gramm-, MS
has gm; the symbol over ¢
may be a miswriting for a.
ibid. -/e33¢ in margin for
illeg. er., prob. -zesse.
l. 4746. -le33c see |. 4706.
ll. 4756, 4764. K. 30de, H.
and MS gode, which is over er.
l. 4770. sop in margin for
pe er.
l. 4772. pin swepe over er.
K.; 0 in foc over er.
|. 4788. drerz3 first written
dreort; o then er.
l. 4803. anz—atell over er.;
cf. K.,
l. 4815. After z two letters
er.; cf. K.
l. 4827. a butenn. K.
l. 4832. drihhtiness —iob
over er.
l. 4842. zss. K.
l. 4861. well swihe unn-
over er. K.
l. 4884. unnorne. K.
XXIV
1. 4889. W. has wxnwresste,
K. -wreste, H.and MS -wresste.
ll. 4897—8. mare 7 swa over
er. K.,
l. 4954. wurrppenn. K.
l. 4978. After this 1. in C.-t.
edit. note on 1. 4978 1. 4.
h
follzesst K.
1. 4996. See 1. 4770.
1. 4998. man. K.
l. 5010. purrhk in margin;
pe wett, pe lusst.
n
l. 5014. pz godd.
l. 5017. pan.
]. 5062. uppo me; cf. K.
l. 5080. wz. K.
1. 5089. swa lufenn over
er. K.
l. 5096. w¢ written over ¢
in Pwerrt without accents. K.
ll. 5116—7. alle—swa over
er.
1. 5131. wax—xenn,
l. 5144. dost. K.
1. 5147. 3ununc bape over er.
l. 5148. dost. K.
l. 5166. Forr 32ff patt over
er. K.
l. 5177. K. reads Anne; I
read inde as H.
1, 5199. Hzss mann over er.
1, 5238. adrthhtin. K.
n
1. 5252. pz; ~ prob.ins. h.
l. 5262. wma; mins. h. K.
___ dates Google
h
l. 5286. muzen. K.
1. 5288. pe sellf.
l. §299. sacc-less; le over er.
l. 5307. #; 2 in s. h.
1. 5387. fin kafe over er. K.
l. 5390. man. K.
l, 5411. dazzess; K. has
AAZ3ZES.
n
- 1, 5452. pz.
l. 5453. K. reads forr3zzfen-
nesse, H. and MS have -3¢fe-
NeSSE.
‘1. 5454. Whether dede or
béde is to be read, cannot be
decided. K. has Jdede.
l. 5471. tatt. K.
l, 5511. Edit.’s peowwess
emended from peowess; see
edit.’s note; cf. K.
l. 5512. 32fepp.
1. 5526. cnelinng over er. K.
1. 5538. wok. K.
1. 5554. pe.
1. 5577. lange. K.
l. 5509. pewwess;
altered from peowess. .
]. 5601. z before word and
dede altered from 7. K.
]. 5612. ze over er. K.
l. 5690. -da3z3 over er. K.
]
l
prob.
. 5706. -tez3c over er. K.
.5756. Aner. after past. K.
1.5757. Aner. after sel/f. K.
l. 5767. mossterr; cf. p. XIX:
l. 5776. In er. t. in edit.
note. |. 13 fa, edit. pe. K.,
l, 22. Marrcuss. K., 1. 23.
dere 7 lef. K.3 1. 32. gastlike
K., |. 49. wrat, |. 60. rode.
K
1. 5779. Marrcuss bi. K.,
1. 5783. 62. K.
1. 5794. se; edit. pe.
]. 5861. After this 1: Forr
kallf wass alls uss sex3p pe
er. Cf. edit. note.
]. 5865. After this 1. in er.
.in edit. note. 1. 19. perrto. K.
], 5911. -wheless over er.
1. 5955. -2 erpe over er. K.
l. 5979. onn erpe over er.
l. 5986. 7 he over er.
]
l
l
[nd
- 5998. zss swa fac- over er.
. 6013. unnclene over er. K.
. 6029. -pedd over er.
n
1, 6044.
oc. K.
1, 6051.
er.
1. 6102.
n
l, 6106. ma; ” in s. h.
1. 6115. pz; 2 prob. added
in s. h. =
1. 6118. 2; 2 in s. h.
man K.; 3eornepp;
seollpe K.; o nearly
n
tt; m ins. h.
1, 6120. 2; ” in s. h.
ll. 6138, 6140, 6150, 6154,
6158, 6186. pz; ~ in s. h.
ll. 6170, 6181. fz; x above
l., prob. in s. h.
1. 6196 —6. macche—tu over
er. K.
l. 6213. dedes. K.
Go gle
XXV
l. 6218.
er. K.
l. 6228.
1. 6239.
After 3uz7c a letter
betwenenn. K.
30ldenn. K.
pt; 2 prob. ins. h.
bi; 2 ins. h.
-/e33¢ in margin for
1. 6259.
1. 6274.
l. 6276.
-ness(e) er.
1. 6304. alderrmann; be-
tween /and ¢@there is a hole in
the MS; allderr- was_ prob.
written.
1], 6329. zss over er. K.
t
1. 6336. But an.
l. 6385 is over er. K.
l. 6397. e33m partly over
l. 6443. pe@ere misprint or
miswriting for were.
n
1]. 6446. na.
l. 6488. wass—lac over er.
Cf. K.
1, 6545. adf fudl in margin
in s. h. for -deke after openn-
er. K.; thus also |. 6573.
1]. 6558. wed.
1. 6585. all full in margin
in s. h. for -zke er. after zz-
terr-. K.
ll. 6699, 6725 are in margin
ins. h. for swa summ pe boc
uss kipepp er.
1. 6748. pz; ~ ins, h.
1. 6794. jlod. K.
]. 6803. cristen-;
nenn, K.
bigunn-
XXVI
|. 6816. cresstene folle. K.
1], 6869. wel.
|. 6883. eorpike. K
h
1. 6938. follzedd. K.
l]. 6960 is over er. K.
I, ae wass fundenn over
er.
l. a 2 zuda over er.
1. 6988. zwzss—sop in margin
ins. h. for alls uss se33p pe
boc er.
l. 7017. ine = inne.
l. 7032. sen; K. reads sén;
the stroke that K. has taken
for an accent is in my opinion
only a part of the letter e.
l. 7044. patt—sop in margin
in s. h. for swa summ he
boc uss se33p er.
1. 7070. Map- over er.
l. 7082. patt—we/ in margin
ins. h. for alls uss sez3p pe
boc er.
1. 7095.
l, 7101.
margin. K,
]. 7169. In er. t. in edit.
note |. 3 3e7; prob. a corrup-
tion for a33.
Stine = sunne. K.
new, unneup in
1. 7178. inn.
1 7186. onn. K.
l. 7234. -eum in margin.
1. 7270. zn. K.
l. 7321. See 1. 6699.
l. 7340. -ss in wass over er.
]
. 7344. Duss brihht over er.
; perhaps in s. h.
1. 7306. 3ellp. K.
l. 7367. ma; x prob. ins. h.
1. 7378. pin; 2 in s. h. un-
der |., by means of a guide-l.
indicated to belong to #z.
1. 7396. naffdenn. K
l. 7397. K. has de@r, I read
ter, as W. and H. do.
1, 7400. 2; prob. ins. h.
1. 7405. Aundess over er. K.
l. 7440. l@re- over er.
1. 7445. léhhnen. K.
l. 7448. rzhht¢ in margin. K.
1. 7465. pegzre.
1. 7512. grediz- over er.
l. 7523. -de33¢ in margin in
s. h.
l. 7552. 7 @33 forr- over
er. K.
l. 7603. ehne. K.
l. 7619. let; edit. lét.
l. 7659. wef altered from
lif. K.
l. 7671. See 1. 7082.
1.7679. patt —we/ in margin
in s. h. for puss sez3p pe boc
er. |
1. 7751. 2 in zmen er. K.
l. 7761. An er. over Zz in
qwitenn; prob. a breve er.
1. 7772. full in margin in
s. h. for -e in gode er. K.
l. 7783. piss.
l, 7812. V sicls argent
prob. in laterh.; cf. edit.’s note —
and p. 104.
l. 7833. clensenn. K.
l. 7843. a; 2 ins. h.
l. 7904. -manne kinde over
er. K.
l. 7912. wézfmanne altered
from wznmanne. K.
1. 7947. Aner. over zwvop. K.
n
ll. 7948, 7979. pz.
1, 8012. 7 a//in margin. K.
l, 8019. w« in szwaulltenn
above 1. h
]. 8058. follzen. K.
1. 8076. xan over er. K.
l. 8092. swihe dblibe over
er. K. h
l. 8144. dollzenn. K.
l. 8153. feorpe. K.
l, 8155. patt—wel see 1.
7082.
l. 8199. pe3z37.
1, 8227. nemnedd. K.
1. 8266. deledd above 1.;
whether in s. h. is question-
able; cf. K. and p. 86.
I. 8284. traconys. K.
1. 8287. wett tu wel in marg-
in in s. h. for se33p pe doc er.
1. 8308. After shollde illeg.
er. K.
1]. 8345. warp. K.
1. 8346. zznnen. K.
]. 8382. a; 2 in s. h.
ll. 8391—2 are shortened
thus: Her éd nu piss godas.
pb 7 uss bir itt p sekenn. XK.
]. 8410. all full. See 1.
6545.
l, 8507. Losep.
I. 8516. See |. 6699.
Google
XXVII
ll. 8629, 8634. @; mins. h.
]. 8646. mz; 2 in s. h.
l. 8657. space.
]. 8662. a; ” in s. h.
1, 8693. ¢ in efft in margin.
1. 8720. See |. 6699.
l. 8777. The second patt
over er.
1]. 8805. -stannudern. K.
n
l. 8944. t; ” in s. h.
ll. 8996, 9007. 3c0rne.
n
l. go21. inness.
l. 9029. crist over er.
l. 9047. After patt two let-
ters er.
]. 9059. wollde over er.;
after /etenn two letters er.
l. 9061. whatt over er.
]. 9go76. pz; 2; » prob. in
s. h.
1. 9084. Zo fenn-overer. K.
]. 9165. kaserr- partly in
margin for £e33se- er.
l. 9179. patt—wel; see 1.
7082.
l. 9185. nemnedd. K. has
nemned; kay-phas.
l. glgt—2. pa—wipp full.
uhht over er.; cf. edit.’s note.
l, 9209. 3¢¢.
]. 9226. 32/7. K.
1. 9227. After occ 233 3 let-
ters er. K.
l. 9230. abuttenn, K.
l. 9262. shriffte; the last 5
letters over er.
XXVIII
], 9268 is in margin.
l. 9269. tékepp. K.; uppo ;
mn in s. h.
l. 9312. all swa over er. K.
l. 9313. w5 wu » » »
l. 9328. he—lare over er.;
cf. K.
1]. 9330. pann. K
l. 9345.
er. Cf. edit. note on Il.9343—4.
l. 9390. forr—lerenn over
er. K.
l. 9409. “ll hemm over er.
ll.9421 — 2. himmsellf—spel-
lenn over er.; cf. K.
l. 9471. zohan.
l. 9491. wépp imenn. K.
l. 9517. 32fenn.
l. 9549. et.
]. 9550. See 1: 6699.
ll. 9559—60. peoww—godd-
over er.; cf. K.
l. 9606. all full; see 1.
6545.
1. 608. onn corpe over er.
], 9617. -mast. K.
l. 9633. ¢in r¢khk¢ corrected
from another letter. K.
l. 9651. tatt cristess peww
in margin ins. h. for te laferrd
sannt er. Cf. K.
l. 9665. After skal/ two let-
ters er. K.
1. 9678.
1. 9688.
1. 9689.
l. 9698.
l. 9717.
See 1. 6699.
te33, over er. K.
aft. » » »
takenn. K.,
name; the breve
Google
Wass sennd over —
in blacker ink; seems to have
been put in later.
1. 9734. un- mitt. K.
l. 9771. nedd- dress. K.
1.9789. wett tu wel in margin
ins. h. for se33p pe doc er.
l. 9791. See |. 9651.
l. 9796. See |. 6545.
1. 9830. Atse over er. K.
l. 9849. See 1. 9651.
1. 9867, An er. after fa. K.
1. 9872. See 1. 6699.
l. 9896. Rz in Rzhht over er.
l
. 9912. After ‘pat’ he wile
er. s. h.; cf. edit.’s note.
l. 9913. makenn cwike menn
over er. K.
l. 9914. same staness over
er. K
]. 9931. @ in mec over er.;
prob. o er.; cf. K.
l. 9932. Affterr.
l. 9933. See 1. 9651.
l, 9961. wel. K.
l. 9998. gode. K.
1. 10035. Butt.
]. 10055. derenn; K. has
beren.
l, 10080. z gode. K.
]. 10091. And. K,
]. 10094. peowwten. K.
1. ae zennaley.
]. 10147. forp. K.
l. 10152, 10177. gredt3- in
margin in s. h. for 3zfer7- er.
l. 10178. -23 szwne over er.
l. 10182. Edit. reads Butt
off mann x4a@fe 1 mare; MS has
mare, which I consider to be
a miswriting for mare.
ll. 10184, 10186. gredz3z- see
l. 10152.
‘1. 10196. aserr- in margin
in s. h. for £e335e- er.
ll. 10202, 10210, 10213,
10216. gredz3- see 1. 10152.
l. 10217. wha setitt; edit.
whase itt. K.
ll. 10234, 10238, 10240 gre-
ai3- see |. 10152.
ll. 10284, 10286. efft o life
over er. K.
]. 10295. zss fat? under |.
l. 10304. e in menn cor-
rected from a. K.
l. 10308. wd2le altered from
wollde in s. h.; cf. K.
], 10320. ¢ in narrt over er.
1. 10321. helyass. K.
I. 10355. See |. 6545.
l, 10357. dutt. K.
1. 10366. See 1. 9651.
l. 10384. tat cristess Peww;
see 1, 9651.
mn
ll. 10392, 10398. uppo; nun
in s. h.
1, 10408, 10415. wifmann
altered from z2smmann.
l. 10412. fz; # in s. h.
l. 10442 is over er. ins. h.
l. 10454. 25s — halt over er.
1. 10456. 2 in dztacnenn
over er. K.
1. 10478. See 1. 9651.
Google
XXIX
l. 10488.
werppenn.
1. 10497.
1. 10503.
l. 10509.
werrpenn; K.
daless; K. dales.
deoftess. K.
siness = sinness.
]. 10528. whane = whanne.
1]. 10560.
], 10585.
l. 10586.
l. 10592.
endeles. K.
See |. 6699.
ex3per. K.
opelt, = opents3.
1, 10601. patt sex3p pe boc
er. for fp w¢tt tu wel in mar-
gin in s. h.; cf. K. and H.
l. 10642. Die K
|. 10661. tunnderrganngenn
seems to be miswritten for
Sanngenn.
l. 10678. uppon; n at the
end of the |.; perhaps ins, h.
1. 10682. mz; 2 in s. h.
l. 10691. manzzwhatt; K.
mannty-.
ll. 10692, 10699, 10700. &i-
ness = kinness; cf. K.
l. 10705. wéz"e, K.
l. 10722. znoh; a hole in
the MS has made this word
partly invisible; a late h. has
therefore added zzoh. K.
l, 10732. kine = kinne. K.
1. 10749. fife. K
1. 10752. See 7082.
An
l. 10760.
l, 10771.
layen.
z gode. K.
XXX
l. 11333.
whane =whanne;
K. reads UnANE:
]. 11378. a. in in s. h.?)
1. 11385. upp; nn in s. h.
l. 11391. ‘0: mins. h.
l. 11393. pew; 2 at the end
of the |.; prob. in s. h.
]. 11457. unnedd.
l. 11508. midt3nesse = mun-
l, 10779. tne siness =kinue
sinness. K.
1. 10794. wztt tu wel see
1. 9789.
]. 10817. fillen. K.
]. 10885. ge@ress. K.
], 10892. droh.
]. 10og11. zc over er. K.
l. 10925. halle. K.
l. 10926. herd.
l. 10931. Aime = kinne. K.
]. 10940. shapenn. K.
]. 10961. See 1. 6699.
], 10966. tikenn, K.
1. 10976. forpenn.
l. 10979. sine = sinne. K.
l. 10981. winenn=winnenn.
K. |
l. 10985. kinde; K. kine.
1. 11008. 7 ¢// over er. K.
]. 11016, winenn=winnenn.
K.
]. 11031. stue = sinne. K.
l. 11042. sume over er. K.
l. 11048. Ba—wel in margin
ins. h. for alls uss sex3p pe
ai3-; in er. t. in edit. note. 1.
2. minde.
], 11532. forp.
]. 11553. za; n ins. h.
l. 11574. deofless. K.
1. 11577. Jott. K.
]. 11636. gluterrnesse ; -nesse
over er., s er. after the last e;
cf. K.
h
. 11640. pur. K.
. 11674. all full see\.6545.
. 11707. perrwipp. K..
1. 11732. Swellc overer. K.
ll. 11736, 11764, 11767,
11784. Mappew altered from
orig. Mapeow.
ee ae |
boc er.
l. 11075. wurrp- over er.
], 11084. wre /a- over er.
], 11086. a. (# in s. h.?)
l. 11112. crzstenndom. K.
], 11146. hand; may be in-
terpreted anund as it cannot
be decided if one or two ab-
breviation-marks over a are
meant.
1, 11237. ut. K.
1. 11296. if above 1.
Google
ll. 11780, 11798. Brees: see
I. 10152.
l. 11799, Séd; edit. déd.
], 11897. ma;mprob. ins. h.
1, 11817. mtz;> » » » »
l, 11877. nennedd. K.
]. 11900. fz; # in s. h.
l. 11907. droh.
n
tz. (w in s. h.?)
séte; edit. séve.
nn
uppo; nm in s. h.
n
], 11917.
l. 11961.
]. 11993.
l. 12008. “#; 2 in s. h.
1. 12019. mz; ” in s. h.
]. 12052. a; 2 in s. h.
ll. 12074, 12076. es see
l, 10152.
n
ma; nines. h.
let. K.
fleshess.
ann, K.
3e0rnenn.
gifenn. K.
na. (mw in s. h.?)
patt—wel see }.
. 12085.
. 12135.
. 12145.
. 12149.
. 12152.
12190.
1. 12212.
], 12218.
7082.
l, 12225. gredi3z- see 10152.
1. 12226. pin; m over er.,
perhaps in s. h.
ll. 12231, 12265, 12277. gre-
ai3- see 1. 10152.
1. 12282. létenn; edit. le-
tenn,
l. 12283.
l. 12286. pz; # in s. h.
ll. 12291, 12297, 12305,
12332, 12339. gredt3- see |.
10152.
1. 12340. omm over er.
l. 12352. After forvr a letter
er. K
ll. 12355, 12379,
gredtz- see 1. 10152.
.
utnumlts. K.
12497.
Google
XXXI
1. 12505. “& in tradd over
er. K.
1. 12538. Jun. K.
1. 12544. z¢zohk over er.
l. 12562. gofe. bas
]. 12669. ee it is
doubtful if xzehkh- with 42% is
meant by the scribe, as the
second /# seems to have been
altered into 3.
1. 12672. patt—wel see 1.
7082.
]. 12683. sine = sinné. K.
nun
1. 12758. uppo; un ins.h.;
the second 2 is over m in the
following word symon but is by
a guide-l. indicated to belong
to uppo and has nothing to
do with syson, as is assumed
by K., who reads symon.
]. 12797. ma; # ins. h.; ef.
], 12800. cuawesst. K.
], 12826. upponn; nn at the
end of the 1., prob. in s, h.
]. 12875. fidledd in margin
1, 12880. na. (# in s. h.?)
]. 12896. Annd. K.
]. 12911. all full; see 1.
0545. |
n
l. 12941. cwawenn; nm in
later h. K. Cf. p. 106.
]. 12955. stuess == sinness.
]. 12967. seggenn. Cf. K.
XXXII
l. 13039.
l, 13040.
1]. 13054.
letters er.
. 13059.
]
l. 13064.
], 13072.
l. 13093.
], 13114.
]
. 13118.
], 13163.
a
forp. K.
cristenndom. K.
After patti some
K.
n
mi;
nm in s. h.
Forr over er. K.
cristenndom. K.
lefe over er.
mann. K.
AG:
lengvés n above |.
in smaller perhaps later h.
]. 13166. créstenndom. K.
1. 13241. See 1. 6699.
]. 13249. After crisstene a
letter er. K.
]. 13264. Under dale in a
modern h. ax ous, ald K.
l. 13284. Loans m in s.h.
]. 13317. to follzhenn over
er. K.
l. 13320. cefas; no accent.
K.
l. 13332. dennemmnedd. K.
]. 13336. hard. Cf. K.
l. 13353. See 1. 6699.
l. 13392. forrp-K.; the two
last letters
1. 13393.
1. 13396.
]. 13405.
]
]
. 13451.
. 13468.
1. 13482..
tohht. K.
1. 13556.
in anan over er.
uss over er.
Forr. K.
her over er. K.
mede» » ».
wipp; edit. wipp.
tohh; first written
puss.
Google
1. 13588.
l. 13607.
]. 13616.
n
pi; nm ins. h.
n
ua» » » »®.
mn
uppo; nn in s. h.
ll. 13621, 13629. See l. 6699.
1, 13643.
l. 13693.
h. K. Cf. 1.
1, 13699.
l. 13716.
s. h.
ll. 13762,
na; n ins. h.
n
cwewe; n in later
12941.
Speche.
n
ma; m prob. in
I 37904. wett tu
wel. See |. 9789.
1. 13802.
W. and H. Buzz,
K. dut; | read dutt; the second
stroke of the letter w is at
the same time a Z. .
l. 13820.
s. h.
1, 13831.
nn
uppo; nn prob. in
K.
oper.
ll. 13842 —3 are, except a//,
in margin p. m.
l. 13848.
l, 13864.
1. 13940.
1. 13989.
from 7. K.
1. 13996.
1. 14004.
], 14012.
]. 14021.
1, 14036.
]. 14068.
l. 14122.
dewenn. K.
swa over er.
posstless.
2 dede; zt altered
K.
gife. K
a;nins. h.
cristess.
n
m1; n prob. ins. h.
gan under 1.
tdkenn over er.
n n
bt pokht, hi lusst;
0” in both the cases in s. h.
ll. 14129, 14139. BreaIS See
l. 10152.
l. 14179. See 1. 6699.
l. 14183. oderr, evidently
miswriting for operr.
l. 14234. fartsewisshe. K.
l. 14241. greaz3- see 1. 10152..
]. 14262. wass.
]. 14276. farisewisshe. K.
]. 14294. W. and H. read
8
Jlesliz; MS has flehliz =
Heshltz; h in pale ink but
legible.
l. 14303. dvunnkenn-nesse.
l. 14339. Wafmann altered
in s. h. from Wéimmann.
1. 14363. mz; 2 in s. h.
mt. (mw in s. h.?)
_ wifmann; see |,
l, 14367.
J, 14370.
14339.
]. 14370.
s. h.
l. 14374.
ters er. K.
l, 14377.
K.
n
mt; m prob.. in
After wass 3 let-
lime; edit. time.
nr
mi; n ins, h.
annd. K.
fulle. K.
Caym. K.
witt tu wel; see
- 14379.
14386.
14416.
14456.
. 14476.
L. 9780.
I. ae —9 Bi; npreb in
s. h.
et —a ewes eet et
. « Fy
Ill — 22103. S. Holm.
Google
Il
. 14484,
h.
]. 14501.
l. 14512.
&4a-
written
of col. 336
ning of col.
l. 14522.
l.
14594.
9789.
1.
l.
K.;
i
I.
14602.
14620.
mins.
14661.
14665.
. 14666.
. 14676.
. 14683.
. 14685.
. 14688.
. 14702,
. 14703.
. 14705.
]. 14712.
9789.
l.
1,
ll.
14714.
14715.
14720,
s. h.
l. 14741.
l. 14749.
l. 14779.
XXXII
n
14500. pz; in
n
adrunnkennesse. K.
cana galile; -na
twice, at the end
and at the begin-
337. K,
purrh.
wett tu wel see |.
Be; # prob. ins. h.
ps pohht over er.
See 1. 6699.
Be. (z in s. h.?)
a. (z in s. h.?)
hof.
ag 1. 6699.
ti n prob. ins, h.
ay min sh
bes mins. h.
pt; x prob. ins. h.
fo in margin.
wztt tu wel see |,
he in margin. K.
bs; m prob. ins. h.
14740. hi m in
drunnkennesse. K.
dates. K.
pewwdomess.
XXXIV
n
a; mins. h.
ve in margin. K.
witt tu wel see |.
]l. 14786.
]. 14816.
]. 14830.
9789.
ll. 14832—3, 14838, 14868,
pt; n ins. h.
ll. 14874, 14911—2, 14920.
dauipp. K.
l. 14924. wett tu wel see }.
9789.
Il. 14926—7, 14932. pz; x
in s. h.
. 14938.
- 14944.
. 14956.
- 14957:
1. 14968. pi; n in s. h.
l. 14970. werrldess. K.
], 15017. pz; ” in s, h.
l. r§01r9. Crésstene. K.
l. 15020. w¢tt tu wel; see
9789.
l. 15022—3, 15028. pz; x
in s. h.
patt.
sellfenn over er.
-kinn over er.
ut; edit. ut. K.
ee ee |
1. 15058. pz; xins.h., edit.
pt.
l. 15127. unnitt. K.
1, 15134. wett tu wel; cf.
K. and edit.’s note.
1. 15139. pakess = pankess.
K.
l. 15169. Anzetenn. K.
1. 15198. ane; after a a let-
ter er. K.
Google
l. 15207. See |. 6699.
l. 15228. crestenndom. K.
l. 15230. Aus altered from
huss. K,
1], 15246. Azss; edit. zss. K.;
hiss miswriting for zss.
1. 15254.
. 15278.
kirrkezerda.
] mast. K.,
], 1§292. cristenn-. K.
1. 15314. gode. K.
l. 15377. drunnkennesse. K.
l. 15380. After fe two let-
ters er. K.
l. 15388. driannch. K.
l. 15389. drunnkenesse =
-kennnesse. K.
l. 15400. we/;a letter, prob.
o, er. between w and /é; cf.
wel 19690, edit.’s glossary p.
547 and K.
l. 15408—9. 2; a in s. h.
]. 15435. all full see 1. 6545.
1. 15471. tacness; tacn- over
er.
nn
l. 15486. uppo; nm in s. h.
], 15516. A; # ins. h.
l. 15532. géfe.
l. 15538. first written: Anunud
affterr patt te laferrd crist,
Annd having been er., pati
altered into ¢att and pat? in-
serted before fat¢t, all in s. h.
n
l. 15562. a; in s. h.
]. 15572. ma: mins. h.
1. 15576. za. K.
1. 15598. 3 in zellpenn over
er. 2
]. 15626. ma; ” in s. h.
ll. 15642, 15660. sop in
margin for fe er.
1. 15670. hemm over er.,
full in margin. K.
l. 15676. lerninng-; K. reads
lerning, MS has lernig.
1. 15706. sop; see 1. 15642.
1. 15707. wifmenn altered
in s. h. from wzmmenn.
1. 15737. deffless. K.
l. 15740. fulewiss; K. and
H. have fuliwis, W. fulliwiss.
1. 15752. per in margin.
1. 15776. An.
]. 15815. strang. K.
l. 15848. wt tu wel; see
1. 9789.
l, I1§901 is in margin in
s. h. for an er. of which swa
summ he boc uss are legible;
the last word is illegible; may
be rekkepp. ,
]. 15930. ma; ” in s. h:;
edit. xa.
1. 15938. Butt; edit. Butz.
1. 15945 is in margin in s.
h. for swa summ he boc uss
lerepp er.
1]. 15985. pPosstless.
ll. 16017, 16028, 16031. gve-
a@t3- see |. 10152.
1. 16038. Butt.
l. 16046. forrwerr- overt er.;
cf. K.
], 16051. Symon. K.
Google
XXXV.
1. 16055. crtstess. K.
1. 16059. gved73- see 1, 10152.
]. 16062—3. spekenn—spe-
chess over er. K.; cf. edit.’s
note on |. 16056.
1. 16086. patt.
]. 16088 is over er. K.
n
l. 16094. mz; ” in s. h.
1. 16103. mann in margin.
l. 16120. mz; 2 ins, h.
l. 16131. a; 2 in s. h.
]. 16134. zvztt tu wel see |.
9789. n
1. 16147. handess.
l. 16150. ma; 2 in s. h.
l. 16172. fatt—wel; see |.
7082. ‘i
Il. 16178, 16181. a; # in
s. h.
ll. 16203, 16207. fz; ” in
s. h.
Il. 16232, 16238, 16240. 127;
nin s. h.
|. 16256. fleslike. K.
1. 16279. After shorrt two
letters er. K.
l. 16295. sop; see |. 15642.
]. 16312. swa summ in
margin; before szwa 2 or 3
letters er.
n
1]. 16340. mz; 2#.in s. h.
l. 16345. dztacnedd; e al-
tered from a. K.
1. 16354. jfindesst K.; a; x
in s. h.
XXXVI
]. 16390. wztt tu wel; see
l. 9789.
l. 16421.
1. 16425.
l. 16459.
. 16472.
. 16476.
. 16499.
. 16506.
1. 16536.
l. 16570.
ters er. K.
1. 16572.
See |. 6699.
name. K.
éue. K.
word. K.
tudewitsshe. K.
well. K.
bigunenn. K.
ma; n ins, h.
After Forr 3 let-
Butt. K.
1]. 16575. Aadlf- over er.
l. 16580. mz flesh, mt blod.
K.; # in s. h.
1. 16581. H. Ner etepp, K
Ne netepp; passage obscure;
it is possible that K. is right.
1]. 16593. sholldenn. K.
]. 16616. a; 2 prob. ins. h.
l. 16626. -2ss man over er.;
cf. K,
]. 16657.
1. 16658.
l. 16687.
16690.
gast 7 in margin.
nr
na; nin s. h.
Boe qe over er.
berenn. K.
16700. patt stah over er.
. 16712. godd over er. K.
. 16721—2. sune—itt over
er. K.
|. 16766.
er.
1. 16797.
ee ee
. .
tokenn; -enn over
lacness over er.
1. 16826. uppo laten over er.;
cf. edit.’s note.
l. 16832.
over er. K.
l. 16837.
er. K.
well; mikell go-
hiss hallshe overt
1. 16830. great, see |. 10152.
ll. 16842—3.
SEUtNeESSESS—
laxhe over er. K.
1. 16844. puss onnzen over
er. K.
]. 16852. settenn t fe follc
over er.
l. 16853. sellfenn over er.
1. 16856. drok.
l. 16866 is over er. K.
l. 16893. See 1. 6699.
l. 16911. paewes. K.
]. 16935. See |. 6699.
l. 16978. sunnderrun,
]. 17001. 3ervde; m in later
h. K. |
]. 17084. -mast. K.
]. 17088. Butt. K.
]. 17093. na; ” prob. ins. h.
l. 17114. mann; nn over er.
K.
1. 17148. na mann; the su-
perposed 2 prob.
in s. h.;
edit. ma man,
1. 17158.
x at the end of the 1.;
in s. bh.
: 17167.
J. 17168.
man; the second
spree:
ae mins. h.
a33, in margin in
s. h. for -enn er.
nm in
ll. 17174, 17177. mi;
h. :
l. 17185. Jape seems to be
written in s. h.
1. 17187. an; edit. dn. K.
l. 17205. -less lare over er.
cf. K.
1. 17218. wile. K.
n
l. 17264. ma; m prob. in
s. h.
I. 17267. twezess; K. reads
tweryzes.
l. 17283. técness; H. has
Zacness, K. tacnes.
l. 17300. Before zss two let-
ters er. K.
m
1. 17326. 3ed¢.
. 17349. See 1. 6699.
. 17369. stah.
. 17383. Butt. K.
. 17408. Over a traces of
an # ins. h.
1. 17415. drthhten.
n
— ttt
l. 17419. a; 2 ins. h.
1. 17435. ke warrp all over
er.; cf. K.
Il. 17551, 17555. Before forr
an illeg. word er. K
1. 17581. hand.
1. 17584. &kepp in margin
in s. h., for. ke wele er.; cf.
edit.’s note.
1. 17594. grikkisshe. K.
1. 17595. W. and H. read
Mycrocossmos with accent on
the last 0, K. has -mos, as
Google
XXXVII
he says the edit. has taken
the “stroke in affterr which
is over -mos for an accent,
It is to be noticed, however,
that the stroke in question
may be meant as an accent
on -mos as well; cf. cossmdés
I. 17559, 17592.
]. 17623. 0; mm ins. h.
ll. 17657, 17669. on.
1. 17702. pz; ” in s. h.
]. 17708. 3e¢; edit. 3e¢. K.
l. 17716. Ankennedd; cf.
edit.’s note and K.
ll. 17725, 17740. mz; m in
h.
t
1.17751. But; edit. Buz.
. 17772. uppon.
1. 17792. After #7- in flep
an er. K.
1. 17873. a puss over er.;
K.
I, 17928.
Te
l. 17942. fae. K.
1.17945. tunnderrganngenn;
cf. 1. 10661.
1. 17950. Butt; edit. But.
1. 17975. adle in margin. K.
l. 18086. Add to edit.’s
note: alls uss se343p pe boc er.
l. 18101. daptisste. K.
]. 18134. fot; edit. fot. K.
J. 18174. dredenn; W. has
dredenn, K. dreden.
wet tu wel see |,
XXXVIII
1. 18175. Aop- over er.
1. 18176. -forp.
F a
l. 18198. set.
l. 18206. dzgunnéen; the last
nm corrected from dd. K.
1. 18213. purh. K.
h
l. 18221. hehre; I cannot
see any er.; cf. edit.’s note
and K.
l. 18244. létenn. K
l. 18249. 3é¢. K.
1. 18254. well, K.
l. 18283. pz; ” in s. h.
1. 18287. Miss-. K.
1. 18298. Butt; edit. But;
gifenn K.
1. 18326. Burt; edit. But.
K.
1. 18361. @ddmodnesse; 1
corrected from d; cf. K.
l. 18367. come in margin.
K.
]. 18376. well. K.
h
R
draten; cf. edit.’s
n
note; uppo.
l. 18384.
l. 18406. uppo; nn in s. h.
]. 18451. Aall- over er. K.
: n
1. 18454. mz K.; » in s. h.
ll. 18458. sz; 2 in s. h.
1]. 18464, 18468. mz; 2 in
s. h.
1. 18507. wzd/e in margin.
K.
1. 18509—I0. -ess in godess
Google
in margin; word wa- over er.;
cf. K.
]. 18626. After off 3 letters
er. K.
l. 18655. ¢att frofre gast in
margin.
]. 18678. oper.
1]. 18679. ma; 2 in s. h.
]. 18686 is in margin.
I. 18691. word over er.; cf.
l. 18747. purrh piss over
l. 18750. ad/, tss summ over
; cf. edit.’s note and K.
1], 18751. stue—=sinne. K.
l. 18756. xa; the superposed
s. h.
l. 18782. speche.
]. 18818. 72; mins. h.
]. 18819. word over er. K.
l. 18835. 7 godess; edit.
And Godess.
l. 18838. mannki-ne. K.
l. 18845. wereld. K.
l. 18855. hepenn-. K.
1. 18856. dwelde. K.
]. 18875. well. K.
l. 18601. godess 32fe; edit.
gastess 3zife. K.
l. 18947. cristenndom. K.
]. 18955, 18961. wa; m in
s. h.
l. 18971. mzss over er. K.
l. 18975. heffneff. K.
oR
1. 18977. na; ” in s. h,
l. 18979.
K.
l. 18981.
1. 18982.
sunebem = sunne-.
n
na; nin s. h.
hem K.; himm is
the form expected.
l. 18992.
1. 19037.
1. 19063.
]. 19075.
9789.
1. 19079.
1. 19083.
1. 19085.
l. 19129.
ter er, K.
]. IQ151.
pe over er. K.
cristenndom. K.
z drinnkinng. K.
witt tu wel see |.
gaff, K.
himm over er. K.
purh. K.
Before Azse a let-
-mn in leddenn in
margin; after hemm a letter
er.
cE ee ee el
. IQIQI.
. 19201.
.. 19261 is over er. K.
. 19268. kennedd in margin.
. 19300. Add to edit.'s note:
n
na; n ins. h.
7 over er.
birrp pe over er.
1. 19306.
-pt fait in margin
in s. h. for Azsel/fenn er. after
bape; cf. edit.’s note.
], 19311.
K,
l, 19312.
we—wel over er.
Z trowwpe; ¢ tr-
over er. K.
l. 19317.
l. 19370.
in margin.
1, 19459.
l. 19461.
1. 19467.
aroh.
-senn in clennsenn
K.
gastin margin. K.
n
na; nins. h.
Profétess. K.
Google
XX XIX
l. 19509. sanen; the second
superposed z seems to be in
later h.; onngen. K.
l. 19534. laferd. K.
l, 19539. a33S¢ress in mar-
gin. K.
l. 19555.
1. 19558.
]
]
wel,
tikenn. K.
7 crist over er.
cnew inoh over er.
- 19573.
- 19577.
l. 19585 is written above
]., scarcely visible, prob. in
s. h.; cf. edit.’s note.
1. 19608. tikenn, K.
], 19627. fartsewess. K.
l. 19642. fz; 2 in s. h.
l. 19648. rthhte ; edit. rikhte.
l. 19651. After ffen 6 let-
er.; cf. K.
1. 19656. fien. K.
l. 19690. wel; see edit.’s
glossary p. 547; cf. K.
1. 19703. aroh. K.
1. 19738. See 1. 6699.
l. 19761. zesu er. after /a-
_ferrd; cf. K.
l. 19787. neh.
l. 19821. K. reads zrnene,
H. irrene, the word is obs-
cure; K. may be right.
l. 19828. sténe; edit. rene.
n
ll. 19851, 19853. “#; # in
s. h.
l. 19860. dapp—te. K
1]. 19869. After ze some let-
ters er. K.; forpenn.
xL
l. 19882. After A/zsse two l. 19942. Mithorouites I
letters er. K. am unable to decide if the
]. 19908. pere. stroke on o is meant to be
I. 19912 rs an accent, or if it belongs to
: 4 a word er.
l. 19941. sezp. l. 19954. grimm—me. K.}
1 Some of the corrections given above are rather important from a
phonological point of view. Thus, for instance, the ghost-form haf (> ho/)
14676, which has been subjected to many attempts at an explanation. Cf.
Effer p. 186, Lambertz § 74, Anm. 3, Thins p. 32, Zenke p. 12, Luick
§ 385 and Anm. 1. Notice also hirrd > hird 10926 (cf. Eilers p. 69),
minndiynesse > mindiynesse 11508 (cf. Eilers p. 63), stakh > stah 17369,
well > wel 6558, 6869, 19555 (cf. Holthausen pp. 16 foll.), zehh > neh 19787.
The § drokh (6822, 10892, 11907, 16856, 19317) have been reduced to one
(6822), which is-no doubt a miswriting for drohk (19 droh!). Cf. Luick,
Effer, Lambertz, Zenke 1. c. and p. 93. My opinion as to the puzzling
spellings butt (30x), butt (10035), bztt 3567, 12215, 12392, 13802, 15938
16006, 16038), d4¢ (1662), d%fan 12233 (alongside with duten, abutenn,
buttan (6336) may be briefly indicated: The vowel in dxé¢ is short (cf.
Luick Gr. § 354, 1 and Anm.). The accents, regarding which I do not
share Deutschbein’s views, have probably been put in later and by mistake
placed on dutt owing to confusion with #¢ (cf. #é¢ 8530—1). The spellings
bistan, buttan (Lambertz § 180 and Anm.) are to be read dat (miswriting
for butt) an (patt) butt an (patt) = ‘except that only’ (< OE pet an).
Google
I. Corrections in h. B.
B.’s handwriting has been briefly but correctly described
by W. in a note on 1. 73 where he says: «These alterations,
(i. e. -zesse > -lez3c) are made in a ruder but apparently
contemporary hand, to which reference is made in the notes
under the letter B» (see Facs. 2). As to the colour of the ink it is
true that B.-text is often written in somewhat pale ink (cf. K. p.
2) but that is no test, as the same colour is found in A.-text.
As a rule we find the h. B. in the numerous marginal inser-
tions which have been substituted for passages erased in the
text, occasionally in marginal additions. Roughly speaking,
there are about 250 marginal insertions in the O. and the
majority of them, or about 200, I consider to be in h. B.
In addition over a hundred superpositions (insertions) of final
m are due to the same h. With regard to the aim these cor-
rections have in view they may be divided into two chief
groups: I. Corrections of a formal character, 2. Corrections
which bear upon the contents and as a rule are of a more
or less theological character.
Group 1.
a. B.-corrections bearing upon accidence.
One of the most conspicuous peculiarities of the second
h. is the way in which he has dealt with the inflection of
the emphatic pronoun se//f. The ending -exm is erased ll.
900, 1079, 1090, 1252, 1306, 3192, 4162, 4227, 4868, 5353,
7403, 8685, 9133, 9353, IOI42, 11252, 11815, 14550, 16602,
16877, 17168 and 19308 but added in Il. 3562, 3614, 11980,
I—asto3. S. Holm.
Google
2
17643. (See edit.’s notes on the respective ll.) In order to
save the metre other slight alterations were made, so that
the number of syllables remained unchanged. It is easy to
see what B. aimed at by these alterations. A used the two
forms sel/f and sellfenn in the sing. quite indiscriminately:
I me sellf 12592, he wollde himm sellfenn 10, tu mahht te
sellf 11987, arrt te sellfenn 1252 in the nom.; after prep.
purrh himmsellf 851, purrh me sellfenn D. 43, forr himmsellf
3562, forr pe sellfenn 6155. B. has introduced a certain re-
gularity in this respect, restricting se//f to the nom. sing.
and using se//fenm in oblique cases. Sometimes the correc-
tions according to this rule were brought about by a prep.
being put in before se//fenn, such a construction having been
chosen that the original nom. became an accus. This is
seen in ll. 3041, 16428, 9912, 17584. Where it was not pos-
sible to make such alterations without violating the metre,
sellf or selifenn are avoided altogether and other expressions
put in, which is not infrequently the case: I0, 310, 1345,
9918, 11259, 11414, 12597, 15747, 17566, 19022, 19300, 19308,
19578, 19668, 19732, 19734.
Still, there are a few instances which have not been
altered according to the principle mentioned. That is the
case with purrh drihhtin sellf 9367 and wll crist sell
18227. In one respect, however, these cases differ from those
which have been corrected, se//f here being preceded by a
noun, not by a pers. pronoun, so it might be suggested that
sellf in this position was the proper form even in B.’s opinion.
But this is not very likely, since inflected forms are met
with in the same position: purrh godd allmahhttz sellfenn
4131, off crist sellfenn 11929—30. The regularity aimed at
by B. does not allow of more than one alternative. I am
therefore inclined to think that they have simply been over-
looked by B., an explanation which must also be assumed
for himm sellfenn* 14944 (nom.), and 7 fe self 1190, 1288. It
is not to be wondered at if in so great a MS as the O.
words and forms which it was intended to correct, escaped
the corrector’s notice. As we shall see later on, this is often
the case.
1 It is to be noticed that se//fenn is here over er.
Google
3
l. 19300 piss dirrp pe full wel trowwenn requires a
te-
special explanation. Here ie selifenn has been erased and
the two words fud/ wel added in the margin, as we are also
informed in the edit. note on this |. But a reconstruction of
the original text according to this information would be fzss
birrh pe pe sellfenn trowwenn, which is impossible for two
reasons: First we get eight syllables instead of seven, which
is the number expected, secondly pe sel/fenn, an acc. depend-
ing on Jdrrp, which in the O. with few exceptions has an
impersonal construction, would have been erased by B., con-
trary to the principle adopted by him. The true explanation
is that dzrrh pe, being over er., is also in h. B., which implies
that there was originally another word instead, perhaps mahhi,
mihkht or shallt, anyhow a verb in 2™4 pers. pres., by which
pe sellfenn was made a nom., the form that gave rise to all
these alterations. It may be objected that such a verb-form
must have ended in -7; consequently the pronominal word
which followed would have been 7, not pe, according to the
consistent use in the O. (cf. p. 106). That may also have
been the case and may explain why this pronoun was erased
at all, for if pe sel/fenn was written first, it would have been
enough to erase the latter word only. cf. an analogous cor
rection |. 1252.
A doubtful case is 1. 18936, where we have 32 pe33
hemm sellf ne wolldenn, there being an illegible er. after
sellf and me being put in the margin (cf. edit. note). The
er. makes us suspect that the |. was first written 327 fe33
hemm sellfenn wolldenn, an inflection of se//f that is expected
to be quite correct even in the reviser’s opinion, as such
examples as 733 hemm sellfenn 17860, 3¢ 3uw sellfenn 17952
are left unaltered. Besides, e, inserted in the marg., gives —
a meaning which is contextually out of place and quite op-
posite to the one apparently intended by A. The edit.
thinks that ze is a scribal error for -e#2, which supposition
implies that a monosyllabic word (zt?) was erased or left
out by mistake and that Aemm sellf was first written.
These B.-corrections show us A.’s use of sel/f and sell-
fenn: sing. sellf or sellfenn in all positions, plur. sedlfenn
Google
4
with the exception of 733 hem selif 18936, which is obscure
and corrupt.’ But since we have reason to suspect that in
the O. endings, at least -e, were sometimes dropped or
added for metrical reasons (see p. 11 fol. below), we cannot
a priort draw the conclusion that this use of se///, in the
O. also prevailed in ordinary prose and in the spoken
language in O.’s day. On the other hand a similar use in
other ME documents seems to favour the assumption that
this really was the case. In »Vices and Virtues» we meet
with: sing. zc me self, du pe seluen, acc. himseluen or him-
selu, plur. always -seluen (Philippsen p. 1158). In Peter-
borough Chron. (later part) the uninflected form is found in
the plur.: of hem self, of heom self (Behm p. 59, Meyer p.
74). In Layamon (A.-t.) only one form seems to be used in
nom. sing., viz. the uninflected self (seolf), in obl. cases.
inflected forms: seolfan, seolfne, seolue; plur. occasionally seolf
in the nom., generally se/ve, obl. cas. scoluen, seolue (Witte,
l. c., p. 126), i. e. on the whole the same inflection as is
aimed at by B. Rob. Glouc., on the contrary, has the same
interchange of inflected and uninflected forms in the sing.
as the A.t. in the O., Azmself, himsulue in nom. and cas.
obl., nom. plur. omsulf, acc. homsulf and homsulue, after
prep. homsuelve (Pabst, Anglia 13 pp. 291—2).
If we turn to OE texts, traces of a similar use are found
even there. _ In Aelfred se/f when emphasizing a pers. pron.
agrees with its headword and is generally strongly inflected.
On the other hand, however, when a pleonastic dative of a
pers. pron. came to stand between the headword and se//,
the latter was either uninflected or put in the nom. (Wilfing,
Syntax I, p. 352—3). This twofold use seems to be con-
tinued and developed further in ME. O.’s sel/fenn probably
goes back to OE sylfum, the only weak form recorded in
Aelfred being selfa (sylfa) (Wiilfing |. c.). Of all the in-
flexional forms of ‘self’ selfum > selfan > selfen(n) was the
1 Cf. the old view on this question: »Auch in der Flexion zeigt O.
eine lobenswerte consequenz. Regel ist bei ihm: Nom. sg. u. pl. ‘sellf’,
casus obl. ‘sellfenn’. Ausnahmen sind selten, vgl. v. 17952» (Witte, Engl.
Stud. II, p. 130 footnote). Sachse (p. 47) considers the alterations to be
corrections made by O. himself.
Google
5
one most fitted to survive, partly because in the transition
period all the other forms were levelled under the form sed/e,
partly because it was the most common (masc. neut. sing.,
plur. all genders). Consequently it gradually became the
only remaining inflected form for all cases and genders.
Hence in the O. nom. sing. se//f, elsewhere sel/fenn. But
as in the nom. se//f was often preceded by a pers. pron.
which was originally a dative, it could agree either with this
pronoun or with the subject of the sentence. Hence se//f
or sellfenn. The use of the uninflected se//fin obl. cas. sing.
and in plur. seems to be a further development of the
tendency in OE just mentioned, where, as is seen from the
examples in Wiilfing, se/f often occurred in the plur. It is
possible that this tendency began in the combination noun
+ sellf, the inflexion of the noun often being less conspic-
uous than that of the pers. pron.
It would therefore appear that O.’s use of sed/f and sed/-
fenn is not individual or arbitrary but characteristic of his
period and dialect. B.’s alterations, on the contrary, seem to
be due to a puristic tendency.
In ll. 73, [1170]”, 1544, 4648, 6276 the suffix -zess/e)* has
been erased and replaced by -/e33c. The latter suffix is
found in the margin for an illegible word erased at Il.
4622, 4706, 4746, 7523; finally it is found over illegible er.
ll. 1768, 4628, 5706. There can scarcely be any doubt that
in these cases too -zess(e) was first written. In all the in-
-mesSé > lerye.
stances given -zess(e) stands as the last syllable of the second
half-1.£ and must therefore have been counted as a mono-
syllable by A., at least metrically. This is very unusual, as
otherwise the suffix -vzesse in the O., of which instances
1 cf. NED under ‘self’,
2 On my revision of the MS I failed to notice the correction in this 1,
nor does the edit. mention it in his notes, but it is distinctly seen in
Skeat’s Facsim. To judge from this it seems to have been made #. #2.
cf, edit. note onl. 73.
8 Whether -zess or -messe is erased is hard to see, but in Il. 1170,
1544, 4648 -messe seems to have been written. -
* As to the metre in the O., see edit.’s Preface p. LXV, Schipper in
Paul’s Grundr, 2:2 p. 208, Saintsbury, Hist. of Engl. Prosody p. 38,
Menthel, Anglia 8, p. 76 foll.
Google
6
abound, is dissyllabic except before a vowel or an aspirate
where -¢ is elided. It is true that in eight of the twelve
cases given above -zess(¢) stands before a vowel, but it must
be borne in mind that immediately after this syllable the
caesura is placed, indicated in the MS by a metrical point,
and there is no instance of an elision in such a position.
That is of course the reason why B. disapproves of -xesse,
which for him is a dissyllable, and replaces it by the mono-
syllable -/e33c. The question that interests us, however, is:
Was there (in A.’s dialect) a form -zess by the side of -uesse
or is -zess only a metrical form?
Like most strong fem. subst. those in -zesse< OE -ness
have also assumed an -e even in cases where it was not
etymologically justified, owing to influence from the e-forms
in obl. cases (Sachse pp. 10—21, Kaluza, Hist. Gr. § 305).
Sachse (p. 17) enumerates no less than 21 instances of -nesse
in the nom. There are two noteworthy exceptions, however,
liccness in the expression pe33 hafenn liccness metedd 1047,
1057, and zw¢tiness, of which there are at least 10 examples,
the suffix -zess always being monosyllabic, even in obl. cases,
where -e regularly appeared in OE: wwe wittness sinndenn
16687, patt w¢ttness (acc.) 16690, ¢o wietiness 18905 (cf.
Sachse p. 18). These exceptions are not easily accounted
for but they offer no exact parallel to the cases under dis-
cussion because they differ from them in two respects: (1)
they constantly appear without an -e (2) the suffix -xess has
ceased to be living and cannot be exchanged for -/e33c.!
Besides these words there was a whole group of subst., a
few o-stems, but most of them z-stems, which did not assume
an inorganic -e but were levelled under the e-less form
occurring in the nom. and acc. of subst. with a long stem-
vowel. (Sachse pp. 13, 18—19). Only a few fluctuate,
having sometimes followed the e¢-pattern, sometimes the
e-less one, as is shown by Sachse p. 14. But I do not think
that this explanation holds good for the instances in -zess(e),
as the majority of them always appear with -e. This is also
the case with the subst. in -zzng, -unng. When occasionally
' One might be inclined to think that this circumstance has caused
them to be felt as plurals if it were not for the form patt witiness.
Google
7
an e-vowel occurs, it is, with one single exception, (Sachse
p. 19) necessary for the metre, so that it is likely to have
been added for metrical reasons. An opposite phenomenon,
i. e. loss of final -¢, is met with in de(oJm < OE Jleoma, of
which I have found 14 instances by the side of 17 /eome.
The compound séeorrneleom always occurs without -e (cf.
Sachse p. 26). Brate (p. 36) suggests that these forms are
due to assimilation to the masc. a-stems, which suggestion
may be supported by the fact that /e/o)m generally occurs
in the expression “hhkt > leom. But on the other hand it
should be noticed that both /eom and -/eom appear exclusively
as the last syllable of the first half-l., i. e. the same position
as the 12 instances of -zess, where a monosyllable is required.
leome, on the contrary, appears also in other positions. This
can scarcely be due to mere chance but rather to the strict
measure in the O. It is possible that the same is true of duce
(< OE éucca) and will (< OE willa), the latter occasionally
occurring by the side of weé/e, although they may be ac-
counted for in another way (Sachse p. 26).
From this discussion we are justified in drawing the
conclusion that the comparatively few examples of -zess found
in ictus do not reflect a monosyllabic pronunciation of the
suffix -wesse in O.’s time, but that they are metrical forms
due to carelessness on the part of the author. It may be
added that sporadic nom. in -m7sse, -nysse are found in R},
R?, Li (Sievers, Gr. § 258 Anm. 1.), which shows that this
word-group began to assume an inorganic -e very early. A.
himself (cf. footnote® p. 5) seems to have considered -ness
as being inappropriate, because in the later part of the MS
-lez3c is exclusively used in the same position, e. g. 8011,
9825, 11124, 11655, 12266, 14408, 18769, 19297.
A similar series of alterations is also restricted to gode> godd
the former part of the MS. One subst., one adj. and °¢t.
some poss. pronouns, all monosyllabic, when uninflected,
have the ending -e in A.-text. This ending is in the
following cases erased by B.: gode (dat.) cwweme > godd full
cweme 5201, 6043, 7772, gode wielle (acc.) > a33 god wille
3383, 3929, 3955, 3969, mene welle (acc.) > a33 min w7lle 2957,
Google
8
fra fine wille> all fra pin wille 4139.' gide cweme 1952
and gode wille 3967, although literally identical with the
two first alterations and having the same position in the
verse, are left uncorrected but have no doubt been over-
looked by the reviser.
As in the preceding case we have to investigate whether
this final -e, erased by B., is in accordance with the common
usage in O.’s language. If that is not the case, we are
entitled to believe that -e was added for the same reason as
it had been dropped in -xesse.
With regard to the first case, gode, where -e represents
the old dative ending, an investigation shows that, except in
this word, this ending is never found in datives like gode,
i. e. standing as an object. Even of godd itself the ¢-less
dative form is met with several times, apart from the instance
in |. 466, which probably is B.-t. (cf. edit. note and p. 68),
Viz. 1453, 2715, godd 7 menn full cweme 9116, godd full
cweme 13647. Note also pe Jape gast (dat.) 2005, pe preost
(dat.) 2127 besides others, Even when occurring after pre-
positions which originally goyern the dat. the. monosyllabic
masc. o-stems have mostly dropped their -e, although it is
sometimes found: att godd D. 138, off godd D. 145, att te
dom 649, wihputenn ..camb 6340, off stan (before a vowel)
4129, affterr clap 6100, wtpputenn dew 9883, fra da3z3 to
da33z, 11065, off godess mup 11713 etc. Many nouns, however,
exhibit e-forms by the side of e-less ones or only those with
-e:fra dep 13415, fra depe 8126, off depe D. 168, D. 222,
4198 (before a vowel), off dep 4042, off pe flod 10860, uppo
flode 14547, att hame 2394, 12985, to king 8449, 14902, Zo
kinge 8154, 8370, off..loff 10009, 10742, to lofe 7 wurrpe
II4I, 1621, 3375, off patt slep 3152, off slepe anan 3136, o
slepe 8352, 8375, z tum 3298, 10624, 11058, 14004, 2 tune
8512, Zo tum 3290, 8511, fo tune Q160, 18071, off. . Zum 10590,
12272, 13454, off tune 19664. OF gzllt, originally an z-stem
but declined like an o-stem as early as in OE (Sievers Gr.
1 The corrections ll. 3955, 3969, 7772 are not mentioned by the edit.
? The nouns which have assumed an inorganic -e in all the sing.
are of course discarded here.
8 For other instances see Funke, p. 49 foll.
Google
9
§ 265), there is an interchange of e- and e-less forms: off..
gillt 5452, off..gillte 1159, wibputenn gillt 8723, 9775,
wipputenn (hise) gillte 15525, 17029, 19644, forr patt gillt 5,
928, forr gillte 22,1129, purrh .. gillt 4252, purrh .. gillte 12291.
Note also zzz welle 19718. Of the cons. stem mann we find
to manne (before a vowel) D. 183 by the side of to pe mann
7192 and hanndfesst an god mann (dat.) 2389. cf. also ¢2//
crist 11898, tell créste 1281, uppo crist 8493, uppo criste 6933.
In the case of the monosyllabic neuter stems the oc-
currence of -e in the dat. is on the whole the same: aft zuz,
2, ann hus, -e, to lac, -ke, to land, -e, o lif, -e, wipph word,
-€, 0 writt, o write. Only two instances of -e before a vowel
are found: whp childe 2455, 0 lande 7226. cf. also forr gode
6643, 10311 (== for good purpose, see gloss. p. 465) but forr
ure god VD. 215, D. 233; ¢o sope D. 110, 13809 (A.-t.), 234,
1275 etc. (Bt. cf. p. 41) but fo faulle sop (also in B.-t.)
alongside with ¢o fulle sope 18249 (occasionally). Probably
< OE so-sopan; cf. also to wzsse 8460 < OE to wissum.
In dissyllabic stems, both masc. and neut., on the con-
trary, this -e never appears.
To sum up. A few monosyllabic nouns of the same
type as godd have preserved the old dative ending in
O.’s_ dialect when preceded by prep. originally govern-
ing the dative, as is shown by instances before vowels,
thus off dehe, to lofe, to manne, off slepe and the two
above-mentioned neuter stems. Where e-forms alone appear,
e. g. att hame, uppo flode, in welle, it is probable that -e
had not been dropped. But with regard to the majority of
the examples in which there is an interchange of forms with
and without -e, it is questionable whether this fluctuation
really occurred in ordinary prose. As we have seen before,
the metre plays no small part with regard to the adding
or dropping of a final -e, and we have therefore to reckon
with the possibility that in such nouns as occur exclusively
before a cons. or at the and of a |. the dative -e has been
added because the metre required a dissyllabic word. That
is undoubtedly the case with gode, first because the dative
-€ was very rarely kept, if the doubtful cases are left out of
consideration, secondly because the occurrence of a dat. godd
Google
Io
before a vowel (9116) indicates that the e-less form was the
one commonly used. I am therefore of opinion that the
correction gode > godd was in accordance with the common
usage in O.'s day; et Gnerlich, Engl. Stud. VI, p. 267, Menthel
p. 78—9.
The same is probably the case with the adj. gode, as
the final -e is, as a rule, not found in this position (acc.
sing.). The OE case-endings have disappeared and the adj.
is uninflected in the sing. except when it was preceded by
a defining word’, in which case it assumed the ending -e.
The same ending was used in the plur. (cf. Sachse § 43).
There are many exceptions to this rule, but an intentional
effort to uphold the distinction between the strong and the
weak inflection is distinctly seen.
As to the monosyllabic adj. the only instances of an -¢
in acc., apart from the five cases of gode, are shorrte lif,
shorrte sbllbe 12171—2.? Thus, if cases stich as stille®, grimme,
in which an inorganic -e has been extended to the whole
sing., are excepted, we find an overwhelming majority of
examples of monosyllabic ¢-less adjectival forms in a acc.
of all genders:
dep innsihht 7 witt 7084, god mahht D. 241, 19646, sellpe
1926, dede 7822, lare 10244, wetiness 17953, ten D. 144, lusst
D. 241, 19646, mann 2369 (insert. A.-text), désve* 2638, werrc
5925, red 8791, wasstme 9964, 10080, 10771, wen 14062, welle
19646, tipennde D. 176, harrd... pine (before a vowel) 1442
(B.-t.), errte 1545, lf 1612, heh wurrpshipe 18363, rthht
shriffte (MS shrffte) 6613, sec mann 6165, sop sahhtnesse P.
68, meocnesse 4940, unnshapinesse 1171, rewwsinng 13862,
berrhless D. 138, D. 314, créist P. 37, “hht 7 leome 1906,
meocle33¢ 1170, strang mahht 7896, wrappe 19558, zp 14461,
trigg ...gripp (before a vowel) P. 69, wac mahht 7808.
It should also be noticed that these e¢-forms always
1 The defining word is often a gen. of a noun; for examples see
Sachse p 33.
2 rthhte lefe 6523 may be taken as a nom. or an acc,
3 Cf. stille der 1177 (nom.), arrt teselif.. 7 stille 7 lipe 1306—7. For
grimmie see Sachse p. 35.
* Full god 7 haisumm bisne 2915 is in B.-text.
Google
pe |
appear before consonants, whereas we have four instances
of e-less forms before a vowel. Under such circumstances
there can be no doubt that in adjectives of this type the
uninflected form was the rule in O.’s dialect and that the
comparatively few deviations, the erased instances of gode
included, are due to the metre. If they were the result of
a confusion between strong and weak inflection, the e-forms
would have been more numerous. Another indirect proof
that the e-less forms were predominant is afforded by instan-
ces such as an new king (acc.) 7149, wifp new 7 unncup
Sterrne 7101, wasstme swet 7 god (acc.) 10039. Here the
loss of the organic -e in the original 7o-stems must be ex-
plained as due to analogy with the numerous o-stems.
After a prepos. things are different. In this position
the ¢-forms are so numerous compared with those without -e
that it is doubtful whether they should be regarded as ex-
ceptions to the rule given above. The instances found are
as follows:
e-less forms: butenn rihht rewwsunnge 9882, forr sop
godd 6680, fra sop meocnesse 4939, 2 swa shorrt while 16279,
sop meocnesse 18459, tnntill nih hellepine 13677, off de(o)p lare
7205, 11970 (before a vowel), god 3e@plez3c 2523, 2551, god...
shriffte 7850, 7856 (before a vowel), 7862 (before a vowel),
sop crist P. 43, sop clenlez3c 2523, sop meocnesse 10Q15,
18433, purrh ful forrleyerrnesse 2032, 4437, lap unnherr-
summunesse 7504, rthht shriffte 7875, sop unnshapinesse VD.
212, wrigg... lefe (before a vowel), wipp derrf speche 19598,
Jasst.. laf 1602, harrd... lif (before a vowel) 3230, rzkht dom
1413, 7318, 10564, sop meocnesse 10919, sop meocle33zc 2605,
sop unnshapinesse 6101, wipputenn sop meocnesse, yen god
mann 5545.
e-forms: off sope lufe 2581, inntall rihhte lefe 3549, till
rihhte lefe 1497, to rihhte lefe 3441, fulle sop(e) D. 221,
1358, 18249 etc., wipp fulle trowwpe 678, 1347, 2302, 13801,
17462, 17664, 18938, fulle mahhte D. 119, fulle wille 5927,
5931, rthhte lefe 1537, purrh rihhte lefe 1407, 19004. For
the substantivized forr gode see p. 9.
Sachse (§ 43) is of the opinion that in these cases -¢ has
been added for metrical reasons, and there are really certain
Google
12
facts that favour such an assumption. First the e-less forms
are in the majority, and further they often appear before
vowels, whereas this is never the case with the e-forms. Thus
sofpe for instance, occurring only once after the prep. off
(while of the same adj. and in a similar position there are
several instances without -¢, even before a vowel) seems in
fact to be a metrical form. On the other hand expressions
such as wipp fulle trowwpe, inniill (till, to) rihhte lefe recur
with such consistency that they can scarcely be looked upon
as being only fictitious. An argument, however, which in
my opinion weighs most against the above-mentioned assump-
tion is the fact that B. himself several times inserts Zo fulle
sop as a substitute for expressions he disapproves of (see
below p. 41) e. g. at Il. 111, 2519, 5862, 6988, 10900. Once
(I. 8047) it has been erased but not for the sake of the e-
form (cf. below p. 47). It is true that B. is not absolutely
consistent in his corrections, but it is not very likely that
the scribe who was so anxious to remove certain inadver-
tencies made by A. to save the metre, should have availed
himself of the same method. It would therefore seem that
the e-forms — perhaps with the exception of sope — existed
in B.’s dialect and very likely also in that of A. They can-
not have been very common but were apparently restricted
to a:few expressions which became fixed at an early period
and which therefore preserved their inflection under the form
of -e, which may represent OE -ze and -re as well as -e.
Another factor that may have contributed to the retention
of the e-vowel was the rhythm, as by the loss of -e a se-
quence of two strong syllables would arise (cf. Jespersen,
Gr. I p. 156).
Finally a few cases may be mentioned which, in spite of
their being preceded by a defining word, show loss of -e:
off hiss full ndpe 18362, purrh patt rihht hallf 653 (Sachse
§ 47), 2nn hiss rihht hannd 8181. cf. also o rthht hallf 144,
626. Of these the instances of 7zkht are only apparent ex-
ceptions to the general usage. Since OE times rzh¢ in the
sense of ‘dexter’ + the noun ‘hand’ had been felt as a sort of
compound. From this combination it was then transferred
to other nouns. The e-less form in this sense seems always
Google
13
to be used in the ME texts: c. 1000 Nicodemus ée pere
ryht handa, Layamon mi riht @rm, an heore riht hond.
Lamb. Hom. a richt halue, a. 1240 Creed in OE Hom. oa
godes rithond (NED, Bosw.—Toller). See also Pabst, Anglia
13 p. 273. The same explanation cannot be applied to off
hiss full nape, which consequently is the only deviation from
the general rule. cf. wipp all hiss fulle wille D. 200, P.
10, P. 16, P. 20, P. 32, §927 etc., wepp hiss fulle kinde 18355.
It is probably due to the metre.
As to the last instances of an -e being erased by B.
mine (acc.) > min, fra pine > pin, these have been correct-
ed in accordance with the same principles as in the preced-
ing cases. The poss. pronouns mz/(nz) and pi(m) are with a
few exceptions uninflected in the entire sing. Thus in acc.
(all genders) mz(n) and pi(m) are met with: mn welle 17167,
min heorrte 2973, pin drihkhtin 1586, tn moderr 1607 etc.
After prep., too, the e-less forms predominate: affterr pin
mahhte 5252, forr pin preost 6154, fra min gast 16240, fra
bin lave 18283, 2 pin heorrte 1263, fe 12226, lusst 12286 etc.
But just as in the case of the monosyllabic adj. so here too
there are a group of set phrases where e¢-forms appear ex-
clusively. Even the curious form 4zse, due to attraction from
mine, pine, is met with in these expressions, which are as
follows:
affterr pine fére 1251, 4429, 6135, forr pine nede 43809,
4401, 4411, 4425, 4443, forr hise nede 11041, 2 mine walde
12010, zun hise walde 4093, 12397, 16457, webputenn hise
gillte 15525, 17029.
Also in connection with the sdvecbial expression pazzn-
kess < OE pances ‘of one’s own accord’: pine pannkess 6249,
hise pannkess 16, 3971, 5587, 7195, 11467, 15139. cf. hess
unnpannkess 7194.
The instances after prep. correspond in use and position
to the e-forms of the monosyllabic adj. and are to be ex-
plained in the same way. As to the e-forms modifying
pannkess the illustrative example Azss unnbannkess (before a
vowel) shows that Azse in this connection was not the pre-
vailing form. Metrical influence is therefore not quite out
of the question. In OE the preceding poss. pronoun agreed
Google
ho for xho
helle >
helless
14
with the following gen.: dines, mines, his, heora pances
(Bosw.—T.). As late as in Lamb. Hom. we find fines pon-
ces (NED). The ending -e may represent the old -es, although
it has totally disappeared elsewhere? (cf. bin fleshess will
6748, 2 pin herritess hus 7374), or pannkess might be felt as
a plur. For both the groups influence from the dissyllabic
ure, 3ure, pex3re is possible. Cf. forr ure ned(e) 1341, 5976,
pex3re pannkess 7190, pezzre... unn- 7189.
J. 452 was first written patt naffde ho nefr er temedd
but was erased by B. and replaced by patt naffde 3ho
nohht temedd (see edit. note on |. 452). What immediately
strikes us here as being unparalleled in the O. is the form ho
for 340. At first sight one might be inclined to believe the
form to be spurious, but considering that a word beginning
with a vowel or an aspirate is required for the elision of
-e in naffde, which in its turn is necessary for the metre, it
seems pretty certain that the form is authentic and was first
written in h. A. That is evidently the reason why the
passage was altered, as the meaning of the substituted 1.
is quite the same as that of the original one. Consequently
there existed a form 4o by the side of 340 in O.’s dialect,
although it is hard to say to what extent it was used in the
spoken language. To judge from this only instance by the
side of hundreds of 3X0, the latter form was the regular one
in A’s dialect too. But he had evidently heard and knew
the form #o and was tempted to use it in his verse occasion-
ally when the metre required a word before which elision
could take place.
The origin and spread of 4o has recently been dealt with
by the Swedish scholar Lindkvist in Anglia 1921, 1 ff., who
has shown that this pronoun was the prevailing form in the
West Midland area, »especially the Northern half of it» (p. 48).
This may be of importance on deciding the dialect of O.
In |. 18860 the ending -ss is added in later h., very
likely in h. B. (cf. edit. and Sachse). The alteration
implies that the s-gen. is preferred to the one without -s.
Now original fem. nouns of all stems have mostly as-
1 Except in the similar expression wisslikess pingess 3186; cf. the
OE adv. ungewisses.
Google
15
sumed the s-gen. inthe O.: laress 16778, lufess 12876, troww-
pess 4015, galnessess, clennessess, gluterrnessess, eddmodnessess
etc. (cf. Sachse p. 20), and so far the alteration is in accor-
dance with the ordinary usage. But still there are many
instances of the old ending -e having been preserved. Some
of them show fluctuation, as sawle, sawless (see p. 16),
peode 8503, 8515, 12810, peodess 12214. A few nouns exhib-
it only the ending -e: frofre gast 757, 10554, 10986, 11001
etc., rode pine 12633, witerhunnge writt' 15298. In one
case the e-gen. has even been transferred to an original
neuter o-stem®, viz. &inne 13653 by the side of the usual £77-
ness, mannkinne (the usual form 1437, 5314, 10815, 13489,
13495, 17452, 18852, 19390) by the side of mannkznness gQ60.
Of elle itself three s-forms are found: 7964, 10214, 17788.
The e-forms are in the majority, but many of them, perhaps
all, may be taken for the first element of a compound. The
O. abounds in such combinations: helle dep, helle fir, helle
grund, helle pine, helle pitt, helle peod, hellewa(wenn), helle
waress. Although it is impossible to decide exactly whether
all these combinations are compounds or not, it is very
probable that many of them are. Thus hel/e waress, which no
doubt goes back to OE fellwara without any connecting
vowel. cf..also OE kellwerod, hellcniht, hellcwalu, which
have a sense related to that of O.’s hellepine, hellewa. cf.
Bergsten pp. 34, 103, 105. If these and similar cases are
disregarded, there remain only two certain gen. sg. in -e,
viz. off helle walde 62, inn helle wel* 19690. It is there-
1 As an instance of a gen. sg. in -e in O. Emerson (Reader LXXXVII)
gives among others wicche. This occurs only in combination with craff
tess 7077 and is certainly the first member of a compound < OE wicce
creft. The same is probably the case with asse in asse cribbe 3711.
? Perhaps this is due to confusion with kind < OE yecynd, -u, -o
(Sievers, Gr. § 267 b, Anm. 4).
8 Lambertz p. 25 asserts that this word we/ is identical with the
adv. wel, well, and thence it would follow that Ael/e is not a gen. The
edit, on the contrary, identifies it with welle OE wielle, welle, welle,
recorded twice in the O., off hiss godnessess welle 19320, inn halt gastess
welle 19718. Both are wrong. we/ only occurs once apart from the ex-
pressions above, im hefiz, sinness depe wel 15400, and goes back to OE
wel meaning ‘pool’, ‘pit’, EModE wee/ (Cent. Dict.) OLG wala (Schade)
Google
sawless >
sawle
16
fore not surprising that the reviser added -ss in the syntac-
tical group (i. e. noun + noun) elle pessterrnesse to distin-
guish it from elle wa, which may be a compound.
The opposite phenomenon is met with |. 6557, where
in the expression off ure sawless nede the -ss in sawless is
erased (edit. note on this 1.). Of course it cannot be decid-
ed from the erasure alone that it has been made in
h. B. It is only supposed to be so from the resemblance
of this correction to the former one. It is not easy, however,
to see the purpose of the alteration, as we do not know if
either sawle or sawless is meant to be gen. sg. or plur. The
context leaves room for both these interpretations. Things
are made still more complicated by the fact that e- and s-
genitives of original fem. nouns alternate in the O. not only
in the sg. but also in the plur. Under such circumstances
only an investigation of the frequency of the different gen.-
forms can give us a clue to this mystery. First, as regards
sawle itself, 7 safe s-forms are found in the sg. (1852, 1868,
6588, 7037, 10634, 11686, 17780), but only 4 in -e (D. 138
P. 102, P. 103, 3653), that is to say the s-forms preponde-
rate, which is in accordance with what has been pointed
out above (p. 15). Of the other instances, which are pre-
ceded by ure, 3ure or pex3re and therefore doubtful as to
their number, I have noted eleven e¢-forms, viz. off ure sawle
nede' 10 X, off pex3re sawle nede 1 X (D. 36); four s-forms:
off 3ure sawless nede 2 (254, 6517), off uve sawless nede \
(11402), zl ure sawless hellpe (4243) 1, 3ure sawles(s) fode
2 X (the two last instances, 11688, 11691, prob. sg.). But
in other nouns whose number we are able to decide exactly,
is it the s-gen. or that without -s that is most current in
the plur? If we turn to Sachse for information he tells us
(pp. 9, 20, 21) that in original masc., fem. and neut. vocalic
stems the s-form strongly preponderates. This statement
may be true of the masculines and neuters but certainly not
of the feminines. Of the latter I am not able to find more
< WG a. It is a well-known word in ME: helle wel (Map; Stratmann).
In Curs. M. it rhymes with se/ (Strandberg p. 112).
1 244, (B.) 1816 (B.), 3493 (B.), 10687, 12621, 12831, 14081, 15635, 16755,
18005.
Google
17
than one s-form in gen. plur., viz. a// piss prinne taless hep
4330, whereas there are 6 shaffte (346, 2159, 3589, 8869,
10762, 19893), 2 mahhte (4976, 4977), 1 pede (15989). Of
the other stems the following s-forms are found: 7 dazhess,
1 posstless (accord. to gloss.), prestess 16008 (in B.-text),
3eress 8020, barrness 8044, childess 8050, kenness 9716, 9996,
menness 386, 13293, freondess 3191, 9132; neddress 9755,
9763, 9771, mineteress in er. t. edit. note on |. 15807.
e-forms: 38 zune (see edit.’s glossary), Azmge 3588, life
3509, horde 6733, neddre' 9265, 9793, pede 15987, 16057,
6 (-)szanne (2597, 4065, 7904, 7912, 10939, 12243), drepre
8293, winnterr 3207, 8900; probably also follke? 5293, 12149.
Hence it is seen that the s-genitive by no means pre-
dominates in the plur., and that of original fem. the gen. in
-e is more current.? Therefore it would seem that in the 11
instances of sawle nede given above saw/e is gen. plur. This
does not preclude the possibility of saw/ess being used by
the side of saw/e in the plur., but the alteration saw/ess >
sawle no doubt implies that the corrector held the latter to
be the proper form in plur. As a matter of fact saw/e in
this function is an instance of »the survival of the fittest»,
as the s-form, being current in gen. sg., is more apt to cause
ambiguity.
The assumption that this correction is made by B. is
supported by the fact that off ure sawle nede occurs 3 times
in B.-text: 244, 1816, 3493. cf. p. 52.
In 1. 13973 the strong pret. part. hezhenn is altered into
hexhedd in later h. (cf. edit. note) and as this alteration is
1 In 1. 9265 meddre is joined to the following word streon in H.'s
edit., in 1. 9793, on the contrary, the same words are written separately.
It should be noticed that the MS gives no reliable information in such
cases (see p. 107) and that H. has acted quite arbitrarily here as in many
other similar cases. It is not very likely that the expression here under
notice, which is a translation of the Latin ‘genimina wiperarum’, was felt
as a compound.
2 all deofile follc 10565 may be a compound.
3 cf. Emerson, Reader p. LXXXVII, Note 1, »Rarely also, gen.
plurals in ¢ are found», i. e. in early Midland texts.
2—estos. S. Holm.
Google
hexhenn >
hexhedd
bigunnedd >
bigunnenn
18 |
of the same puristic character as the preceding one, it is very
likely in h. B.
Elsewhere the weak part. is always met with in A.-text,
recorded no less than seven’ times: 2641, 2648, 9204, 9602,
9624, 9644, 9646. That is also the form we expect, hexhenn
being a new-formation from O. Angl. adj. 4ek. As far as
I can see, the denominative formations found in the O. are
all weak. verbs: dzlappedd (accord. to NED prob. from /ap)
14267, forrhoredd 2043 (not given by Zenke), /akedd® 6491,
unnpewedd 2186, pewwtedd 549, wrappedd 17846 etc. cf.
also similar formations from Scand. loanwords lazhedd 3731
(Bjorkman, Loanwords p. 90). This being the case, it is
astonishing to meet with such a form as hezkenn. The only
verb that offers a parallel is czennkenn < OE acwenc(e)an,
which once has pret. part. cwennkenn (14585) by the side
of the common cwennkedd (Zenke, pp. 18, 21). Both hezhkenn
and cwennkenn are probably miswritings on the part of A.
As to the former it might be suggested that it is due to
analogy with strong part. of a related sense such as hofenn,
risenn. cf. the part. dawene in Alisaundre (NED under ‘low’)
from ME /a3zhenn (O.), dawenn and Sievers, Gr. § 406, Anm.
7, Lambertz p. 69.
In this connection a similar alteration may be discussed,
although it is uncertain whether it is in h. B. In 1. 18206
the last z in dzgunnenn (MS bigunnen, cf. K. p. 14) is altered
from an original -dd, which implies that a form dz:gunnedd
was first written. This is no doubt a scribal error, the regular
strong part. being recorded no less than 15 times (Zenke p. 8).
Of all the verbs belonging to the same class not one in-
stance of a weak pret. part. is found. On the whole the
OE ‘ablaut’-system is fairly preserved in the O. If forms
such as shadde—shadd, radde—redd, dredde—dredd, sleppie,
1 Zenke p. 18 gives only six.
? According to Zenke p. 14 O.’s lakenn = ‘to serve’, ‘to sacrifice’
goes back to the OE reduplic. verb /acan = ‘to leap’; ‘to play’, and the
weak pret. and part. /akedenn, lakedd are explained as being formed ana-
logically after the [I°¢ weak class. It seems rather to be a new forma-
tion from the subst. Zac in the sense ‘sacrifice’, especially as the OE verb
had another meaning. The same view is found in NED.
Google
19
which were current already in OE, are excepted, there remain
only a few examples of analogical weak formations: /utenn —
lutte, putenn—putedd, tredenn (part. pret.) by the side of
trededd.*
In the O. there is an interchange of wz/mann (-menn) wimmann >
and the assimilated form wimmann (-menn). All f-forms, ~/ann
however, are due to B., who has altered the first sz into an //:
wimmann > wifmann 291, 10408, 10415, 14019, 14020,
14339, 14370, wemmenn > wifmenn 3060, 4254, 7076, 15707,
wimmanne > wifmanne 7912, wimmannkinn > wifinannkinn
3058. On the other hand the original form is left unaltered
at Il. 2031, 2273, 2285, 2333, 2351, 2563, 2880, 16671 (wzm-
mann), 2061, 2350, 2416, 2430 (wemmenn), 2314 (wimmaness),
239, 2334, 2542 (wzmmannkinn). Consequently the assimilated
form zwimmann was consistently used in A.’s dialect, whereas
the proper form according to B was wifman. It should not
be taken for granted, however, that the latter is a dialectal
form. Nearly all the B.-corrections show a puristic tendency,
and to judge from that, it may be assumed that the correct-
ed forms are due to traditional spelling. It is also possible
that zzfmann reflects an old-fashioned and more conserva-
tive pronunciation than w2mmann, a theory which also would
account for the numerous z-insertions (see below p. 20 foll.).
With regard to the origin and spread of the assimilated
form, which needs a thorough special investigation, geograph-
ical and dialectical, a few hints may be given.
As early as in late WS. the assimilated forms often
appear and seem to be predominant. Aelfric has zeman,
wemmen, by the side of zwzfman, and in the MSS Corpus
and Hatton of the WS Gospels zwzmmann is found Mark X,
21. The parallel passage in the Northumbrian versions Li,
Rw? exhibit unassimilated forms wéfmon, wifmenn (in R?
only w2zf is found). If we turn to ME, the /-form begins to
be more rare. In EMidl.-texts it does not seem to occur
at all: Peterb. Chron. (later part) wzmmann, wimmenn (Meyer
p. 36), Gen. & Exod., Floris & Blaun. wzmmann, Havelok:
1 Zenke p. 5—6 assumes that transition to the weak class has taken
place in Jdilefenn — bilefedd ‘to remain’. They are rather to be looked
upon as regular forms from OE delefan.
Google
Insertion of
SJinal a,
20
qwuman, Desputisoun wymman, Handl. Synne wommann, wym-
menn. The same is the case in the North: Curs. Mund. (Cott.
Vesp. A III) zvommen, Hampole women, Engl. Metr. Homilies
womiman, wimimen (Wetzlar p. 78). In the South, on the
contrary, it seems to have been kept longer. Layamon (the
early MS) has w2fman by the side of wzimman (wiman) (Lucht,
p. 64), Vices & Virt. wzfmanne (Philippsen p. 6), Ayenbite
wyfmen (mostly). In Rob. Glouc. and Shoreham I have found
only assimilated forms (as to the former see Pabst, p. 258).
In Lambeth. Hom. wimmenn ~ wifmenn (Stadimann p. 92).
This small collection of forms indicates that before 1200
wintmann had superseded the old unassimilated form and
that after 1300 the latter is retained only in the South-East
(Kent). Consequently the form w2zfmann in the O. either be-
longs to another dialect or is due to traditional spelling.
A final 2 is mostly, although not quite consistently, in-
serted in the words a (indef. art. or numeral), xa, mz, pz,
in some cases also in o (prep.), by B. This z is plac-
ed above the 1., occasionally at the end of it if there was
space, or in the margin. In the last case it is often very
hard to discover, because it is written far away from the
word it belongs to. That is obviously the reason why it
has so often been overlooked by the edit. W. and H. and
consequently not printed. In the latter’s edit. the following
instances have been noticed: a: 16131, 16354, za: 1625, 5262,
12797, 16150, 16536, 16658, 17158, 18679, 18756, 18955, 18961,
18981, IQIQI; mz: 16094, 16120, 16232, 16238, 16240, 16332,
16580 (two mStanCes), 17167, 17174, 17177, 17740, 18454,
18458, 18464, 18468; Bi: 1268, 1007: 1614, 7378, 14968, 15058,
17702; 7: 1607, 8944, 18818; O: 18406.
It eee be mentioned that the superposition of a fin-
al ~ is by itself no certain criterion that it is inserted in
second h. because all through the MS consonants are often
written above the |., most of which are probably corrections
in h. A (see pp. 89 foll.). Often, however, the z inserted by
B, differs slightly in form — that is distinctly seen in Napier’s
facsim. in four instances 7815, 7817, 7821, 7843 — and in
Google
21
the colour of the ink. Still, there are several cases in which
I have not been able to decide exactly whether a final x
is inserted p. m. or s. m. In the following list such cases
have been denoted as doubtful.' Besides the examples in
which the inserted ” has not been printed in H.’s edit. the
following have been found:
@: 3321, 3847, 7843, 8382, 8620, 8634, 8662, 12052, 14004,
14688, 14786, 15516, 15562, 16178, 16181, 17408, 17419.
Doubtful cases: 6966, 11086, 11378, 14661, 16116.
na: 3225, 6106, 11553, 12085, 13607, 13643, 15626, 15930,
17264, 18977, 19461. Doubtful cases: 6181, 6307, 6446, 7367,
11807, 12212, 12880, 13716, 17093, 17148, 19912.
mt: 8646, 10682, 12019, 13059, 14363, 14379. Doubt-
ful cases: 6391, 11817, 14021, 14367, 14371.
pi: D. 12, 5252, 6118, 6120, 6138, 6140, 6150, 6154, 6186,
6274, 6748, 7815, 7817, 7821, I13QI, 11900, 12286, 13588,
14122 (two instances), 14484, 14500, 14620, 14665, 14702,
14720, 14740, 14832, 14833, 14838, 14868, 14926, 14927, 14932,
15017, 15022, 15023, 15028, 15408, 15409, 16203, 16207, 18283,
19642. Doubtful cases: 5452, 5554, 6115, 6158, 6170, 6196,
6259, 7400, 7948, 7979, 9076, 11393, 12226, 14478, 14479,
1400? 14703, 14714, 14715.
fZ: 5307, 6102, 12008, 19851, 19853. Doubtful cases:
9076, 11917, 14685.
O: (uppjo me 10392, 10398, 11385, 17623, 18384, godd
11993, 13616, symon 12758, 13284. Uncertain cases are:
(uppjo me 5062, 17657, 17669, 17772, 3uu’ 9269, uppo (be-
fore caesura) 12826, 13820, crés¢t 10678, 13785.
1 The only scholar who seems to have drawn attention to these
m-insertions is Kélbing in his collation. But he has noticed comparatively
few instances (cf. his notes on Il. D, 12, 1268, 1625, 5262 in his collat.).
Nor do I venture to claim to have seen all the instances, although many
of them can scarcely have been overlooked. — In Zupitza-Schipper, Alt.
u. etc, p. 111 ‘#’ in ‘min’ 15572 is indicated to be in another h. by having
been put in brackets (textual notes). cf. also Hall’s extract ll. 2, 92.
Google
22
The following instances left uncorrected have been found:
@: 1715, 2970, 3366, 3370, 3430, 3467, 4004, 4086, 6968,
8123, 18316; ma: 8623; mz: 17721; Ht: 1552, 13514, 18815;
tZ: 4436.
. It is seen from these z-insertions that‘ final in an, xan,
min, fin when standing attributively before a cons., except
hk, was dropped to a far greater extent than the printed
text shows. But even if these secondary z-forms are not
taken into consideration the loss of final cannot be said
to have taken place with any consistency or regularity. -
and z-less forms occur indiscriminately before the same cons.
and in the same positions: zz a cribbe lex3d 3366, e33de
himm inn an cribbe 3665, pu wass mi moderr 14370, tu
wass min moderr 14385, pin witt, wihh all pin lusst 5004,
ne pburrh pi witt, ne purrh pi lusst 5010. The loss is not
always restricted to weak-stressed positions. Thus for in-
stance a = ModE ‘one’ (numeral) is met with 1. 6968 @ da33.
cf. bitwenenn an pusennde shep 7757.1 In some parts of the
MS the fuller forms appear exclusively. Thus Dedication
1 Of the same numeral the curious spelling azz is found in con-
nection with szfe: 549 (insert. A-t.), 1025, 1685, 1699, 15576. Lambertz
(p- 19 Anm, 1) assumes that the long vowel has been shortened owing
to weak stress. This explanation is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First,
an in all other cases both as a numeral and an indef. art., in which
latter position it actually is weakly stressed, has preserved its long vowel:
an allmahhti, godd 1536, an had off twinne kinde 1431, off an kinn
2069 (numeral), an full haliy mann 8587 (nom.), an karrte (acc.) 8701,
inn an fétless 8648 (indef. art.). Secondly, amma, as far as I am aware,
does not occur. with weak stress. In all instances it means ‘once’ as
opposed to ‘twice’, a meaning which implies value-stress. It might there-
fore be supposed that the second # in these few examples is due to a
later h. This does not appear, however, to be the case. It is true that
in the last four instances the sec. # is written over the first but it has
not the form characteristic of B., so I am of the opinion that the doub-
ling of # is made p. m. In OE the corresponding expression was ene (ane)
sipe (Sievers Gr. § 331, Wiulfing, I § 163) or onm enne sip. Is O.’s ann
sipe a compromise between these two OE equivalents, ann being taken
from the latter (@mme > anne > ann) and sige from the former? It
is true that the OE acc. masc. @ame survives in the O, in a few expres-
sions, even after the prep, at (< @t) and off: anne child 3364, sang
3374, cif 8117 (acc.), att enne time 133, off enne mann 9197, 9561, but
then it always has the function of an indef. art.
Google
23
(342 ll.), Preface (106 Il.) and Homilies Il. 1—1267, fz D. 12
excepted, with 38 x-forms, 1711—3224 26 x-forms, 4437—
5009 also 26 x-forms. Most often » seems to have been
dropped in zx and zm, there being 60 pz (#2) and 21 mz.
But there are at least as many z-forms. The 28 and 25 a
and wa respectively form a very small percentage of the
extremely numerous forms with 7.
Only in one case does loss of.final 7 seem to have taken
place regularly in A.’s dialect, viz. in the expression a Jrtell
(1715, 4086, 8634, 8662).
B. evidently aimed at introducing the full forms every-
where. The instances which are left uncorrected were no
doubt overlooked by him. |
As to the two forms o, on, the former is as a rule
used before all cons. except #, the latter before vowels and
h. Of the comparatively few deviations given above 9 are
due to h. B., the remaining 9 #-forms are doubtful as to
‘their originator. It is seen from the list above that B. alters
o to onn only before certain words: me, godd, symon. That
it was not his.intention to correct all 7-less forms, is obvious
from the fact that he himself used 0 before cons. elsewhere
in his insertions: “ppo prittene dazzess 6965 (cf. p. 52 and
edit. note on |. 6958), o pe 1042, 0 Jatin 1037, 1038, 1045;
even before m in 0 messeday3 4180 (see chapt. on insert.
leaves p. 72). The B.-corrections 0 > on before godd and
symon seem to be quite arbitrary. Before the former noun
ois the rule in A.-text: (uppjo godd 4932, 6212, 7212, 7386,
7428, 7975, 10023, 17222, 0 godess hallfe (sune) 3093, 3346,
3853, 6127. The same is the case before s: uppo se 13296,
sinness 15821. The fact that the prep. before symom stands
in a metrically stressed syllable can scarcely have caused
the insertion, as the z-less forms before a cons. are used even
in this position: o pe temmple 11958, uppo pe rof 11959, uppo
fe.. sandess 14805 etc.
If for paleographical reasons it is doubtful whether the
two z-forms before crzst are due to A or B, the general
use of o before the same word elsewhere favours an assump-
tion that 2 is really inserted in another h.: (uppJo crist(e)
Google
24
678, 1597, 3841, 8582, 9442, 10838, 10852, 13145, 16808,
16920, 16932. cf. also Zz cvast 13530, 2 crtsstenndom 8815.
Before the pronoun me B. prefers the full form, which is
seen from his five #-insertions above. In A.'s dialect the z-
less form is mostly found in this position, but not exclus-
ively. Besides the five corrected examples there is only one
other safe instance: o me 18460, which is left uncorrected.
Before other words beginning with the same cons. o prepon-
derates: 0 mannkinn D. 277, 12954, 0 moderr hallf 11581,
12718, but curiously enough an isolated z-form is met with,
upponn mann 6888, which seems to be in h. A.
The prep. z(zm) offers an interesting parallel in this respect.
Like o(mm), the latter drops its # consistently before all con-
sonants (for 3 see below) even before m: ¢ méte 4586, 2 maz3phad
2286, z manness kinde 6220, 2 muneclif 6330, with the exception
of the pronoun me, before which the full form is exclusively
used: 1192, 5074, 5076, 5226. This being the case, it is
not impossible that the four -forms of om before me which
were designated as doubtful cases are due to the first h.
This interchange of omm and o, zzz and z before m is very
surprising and I am unable to find any plausible reason for it.*
nun
Among the instances of 0 which may be p. m. or s. m.
there were two before the pronom. form 3uw. Before this
sound the z-less form always appears in A-text: uppo 3uzw
9805, 3ure 3er 11070 (insert. A.-text), 0 3unnkerr weorrc
6242, 0 3zonnd hallf 10580, 10612. With the prep. zzz, 2,
on the contrary, almost the opposite is the case: zu jure...
lefe, 1719, 3ure clapess 6117, 3unnkerr herrte 13019, 13045,
[zenge 4255]. Only before 3errsalem does 7 predominate:
i 3errsalem(ess) 8439, [8439, 9182, 9188]*, 15615, 16497; zu
3errsalem 15864.* Here the dropping was apparently checked
1 Occasionally the # of an, pin, min is dropped before m in A-t.:
a utann 4004, 18316, fi moderr 1607, mahhit 5252, mi moderr 14379. cf.
also uppo pe 5100, ¢ pe 4686, 5228.
2 [nn yunnge, nn later on ascertained to be in h. B.
8 In these examples 3 in 3errsa/em has been altered to g (Napier,
Notes p. 73). cf. p. 103.
‘ The form zaz for an expected 7 P, 95—6 Jum guapprigan ammina-
dab, Inn currum salomonis may be due to Latin influence.
Google
25
by the similarity of the purely vocalic sound z to the voiced
palatal fricative 3, which at O.’s day was no doubt greater
than nowadays, the latter sound having a more vocalic
character. This is especially likely to be the case in 3x,
gure <OE cow (tow), eower (tower), where the change ed >
70 > 3u had probably not been completely carried out, although
graphically denoted by the symbol 3. But even otherwise
there cannot have been a very great difference at least be-
tween the long vowel 2 and 3, which is seen from double
forms such as 32f, 2ff, fulewiss, fulywiss (< full yewtss),
modi3znesse, modinesse, unnshapiznesse, unnshapr- etc. (cf. Bjork-
man, Anglia 37, p. 367, Lambertz § 219, Slettengren, pp.
55—6). Consequently it is only natural that there should be
fluctuation in the dropping of final x before this sound, and
therefore it is not impossible that the instances of omz before
342 are written p. m.!
Finally we have to discuss two doubtful instances of z
before the caesura. The usage in the O. in this respect
differs according to whether the caesura coincides with the
sentence-pause or not. In the former case, i. e. in instan-
ces of the type he wollde hemm brinngenn onn| to xeornenn
etc. 12498—9Q onm, inn are exclusively used: 6850, 7717,
10360 (onn), 12640, 13228, 13448 etc. (zm). In the latter
case, 1. e. instances of enjambment — the type we are con-
cerned with here — such as 3e shulenn sen... enngless...
bape upponn | pe manness sune stizhenn 12824—6 there seems
to be vacillation. Apart from the doubtful cases (12826,
13820) I have found only two more, one zpponn 13886 and
the other zfpo 18975. Of the prep. z/xz) there is only one
example, viz. z 1. 529 (insert. A.-t.).
The material is too scanty to afford any conclusions, but
on this point one would expect the same usage as in ordinary
prose, i. e. loss of final ” before a cons. If A. used the z-
form in this position, which is not indisputable, he must have
done so for metrical reasons.” |
1 an in upponn yuw 6119 seems to be written p. m.
2 The a-form before /atin in ufponn latin boc 10165 is no doubt
due to a mistake on the part of B. Instead of /atim, which is put in
the margin in h. B (see edit. note on this 1.), there was originally ha/t,
Google
26
Summary of conclusions to be drawn from the preceding
investigation: The prep. z/zz) and o/mn) when preceding a
noun generally drop their final 2 before cons. except 4
(fluctuation before 3 and m) in both A.- and B.-t. In an
attributive position before a noun beginning with other cons.
than # # in an (art. + num.) and am is occasionally lost,
in mzn and fix (tim) more frequently, in A.’s dialect. B. pre-
fers the fuller forms.
It might now be asked: what were the conditions in
this respect in other ME dialects? This question is not easily
answered and would require a special investigation on a
broad basis. I will content myself with giving a brief sur-
vey of the forms am, nan, min, pin, on, in in the above-men-
tioned position in a few important ME texts:
East. Midl. Peterbor. Chron.: usually am, 1 a, inter-
change of zaz and za, always min, pin, in, on (Meyer pp.
34, 79, Behm p. 60). Bestiary: usually a, occasionally an,
interchange of zo and zon, pi and pin, o (mostly) by the
side of om, one, always im. Gen. & Exod. interchange of @
and an, no and zon, usually min, pin, occasionally mz, pz,
mostly om, rarely o, always zz. Floris & Blaunchefl.: @
(stressed 0), mz, fi, on(e) (n dropped in alive, aslepe), al-
ways zz. Havelok: a, no, mi, on (upon), in. Desputisoun:
a, no, pt, on (except ofve), in Handlyng Synne: 4, no, py,
on, in. West Midl. Kath. group.: a, za (mostly), an, xan
(occasionally), 22, 2, rarely min, pin, o and on, z and zn
(cf. Einenkel, E.E.T.S. 80 p. XLII, LI), Lamb. Hom.: az,
on, na, mt and min, pf and pin, on, in(e) (Cohn pp. 29, 73,
77, Stadlmann pp. 129, 132). Trin. Hom. a, xo, mz, Bt, occas-
ionally sn, pin, on, in (cf. Morris E. E. T.S. 53, pp. XVII,
XVIII), Proclam.: on, 7. Southern texts: Wooing: a,
na, mt, pt (the two latter even before 4), 0, z, occasionally
zm. God Ureisun: a, no (once non), mi, pi (mine, pine), o
(once a), ze (3), zz (1), z (1). Sawles Warde: a, xa, mi, pi,
o, 2 and zz, Layamon: a, an, na(n), mi(n), pi(n), a, 0, occas.
in h. A., before which upponn is the form expected. It is obvious that
B, on substituting /atim for haliy, omitted to correct upponn. cf. uppo
latin boc 16826 over er. inh. B, for which upponn haltx, boc was probably
first written (see p. 41).
Google
27
on, t and in. Rob. Glouc. a or an, no, occasionally xon,
mi, pt (usually), more rarely mn, pin, on (but alzue, oliue), in
(Pabst, Flexionsl. pp. 292, 297, 298). Northern texts:
Curs. M.: usually a@, a, mi, fi, mostly 0, occasionally on,
always 7m.
From this collection of forms I draw the following con-
clusions: In the case of av, nan, min, in the dropping of final
m seems to have begun in the middle of the 12 c. (Peterb.
Chron., Lamb. Hom.). About 1300 the usage became fixed
at the expense of z-forms in most texts (Handl. Synne,
Desputisoun, Rob. Glouc., Curs. M.). A.’s dialect in the O.
agrees on the whole on this point with the Bestiary and Gen.
& Exod., although they are at least half a century later.
B.’s usage of full forms everywhere has no parallel in ME
texts whether contemporaneous or not. In Peterb. Chron.,
which is considered to be earlier than the O., the dropping
has already set in, although it is restricted to sporadic in-
stances of @ and za. This strongly supports the assump-
tion that B. wanted to bring about a regularity which was
in accordance with the traditional spelling. |
The prep. oz and zz seem to have undergone an oppos-
ite development. In the O., where the loss has been car-
ried through most consistently, it must have begun rather
early, say in the beginning of the 12 c., in the West Midl.
and certain Southern texts somewhat later. Even in such a
_text as ‘Wooing of our Lord’, where the dropping tendency
was very strong, as is seen from instances of mz and pz
before 4, there is fluctuation between 7 and zz. In the con-
temporary Lamb. and Trin. Hom. the prep. have been left
intact. In the course of the 13 c. the #-less forms become
rarer. In the Bestiary and Gen. & Exod, for instance, there
is an interchange of o and om but only zz. And about 1300
on and z# prevail: Havelok, Desputisoun, Handl. Synne,
Rob. Glouc., partly perhaps through influence from Southern
dialects. The Northern Curs. M. has still 0 (om) but only zz.
It is surprising to find, however, that except in the O. z is
not found in any other E. Midl. or Northern texts’, where
2 In Rob. Mann. Chron. it still appears (Boerner, p. 301). cf. also
Jather-e-law, brother-e-law in 15th c. Yorksh. deeds (Baumann, p. 91).
Google
aiferr-> gre-
air.
28
influence from the Scand. z would be expected. But the
literary use of ¢ seems to have existed for a very short time
only and become extinct in the middle of the 13" c. for
reasons yet unknown. For it should be noticed that z is
still employed in the corresponding mod. dialects. (NED,
Wright, Dialect Dict., Peacock p. 238).
b. Corrections bearing upon the vocabulary.
All through the MS we find the words 32ferr, 3zferrnesse,
-/e33¢ erased in h. B and gvedt3- substituted. I have noted
no less than 41 instances: 2967, 2975, 4522, 4560, 4648,
$713, 1012, 10177, 10184, 10186, 10202, 10210, 10213, 10216,
10234, 10238, 10240, 11780, 11798, 12074, 12076, 12225,
12231, 12265, 12277, 12291, 12297, 12305, 12332, 12239,
12355, 12379, 12497, 14129, 14139, 14241, 16017, 16028,
16031, 16059, 16839.’ 1. 10218 was first written 7 3zferr
affterr ahhte but is erased for fo winnenn erplic ahhte, a \.
which is often found also in A.-text, e. g. I4141, 14243,
16111. One single instance of 3¢/errnesse (9318) is left un-
corrected®, which no doubt has escaped the reviser’s atten-
1 cf. edit. notes on Il. 2967, 2975, 4522, 4648, 5713. In the last note
he says: «Grediqnesse is written in margin instead of 3f/errnesse erased,
B, as is the case also in many other places where the word occurs».
? Wyld, who examined part of the MS «to see how far the sym-
bol g(_ the specific symbol invented by O.) was used for O. E. 3» (Otia
Merseiana IL pp. 132—3) incidentally indicates some instances of 3¢ferr-
nesse (gif-) having been erased for grediqnesse. His statements are as
follows: «In columns 229 and 255 the word giferrnesse is blotted, and
gredixness — erroneously for grediznesse — is in both cases added in
margin. The erased words are very difficult to read, but I convinced
myself that the first letter was g in both cases. On the other hand, in
col. 254 we have 3tferrnesse erased twice. In col. 253 giferrnesse has
been erased, nothing being added.» As I had not the distribution\of the
symbols 3 and g in view when examining the MS I cannot express my
opinion as to whether Wyld is correct in his observations or not, but it
should be pointed out that in the former case his examples are all ex-
cept one wrongly or incompletely quoted. In col. 229, which begins 1.
9252 and ends 1. 9317, there is no word 3/errnesse (gif-) at all. Nor
can he have meant 3/errnesse in the next 1. (9318) which has not been
erased (thus both the edit.). In col. 255 no less than six 3¢ferrnesse (gif-P)
Google
29
tion, as in a parallel passage 10201—2 32ferrnesse is correct-
ed. The synonyms gvredz3, -nesse, -/e33c are employed also
by A., although more seldom: 3994, 4697, 8014, 10217, 15789,
16831. Both the words are used in the sense of ‘eager for
gain or wealth’: ¢o follz3henn 3t/errnesse | patt iss turrnedd to
patt an|to winnenn affterr ahhte 16017—19. cf. also 4645,
5713; forr whase it iss patt grediz iss | 7 3¢ferr affterr
ahhte 10217—I19 (A.-version); 32ésunng 7 grediznesse 4697.
— There may have been several reasons why B. preferred
gredi3 to 3iferr. It is possible that the latter was less
familiar to him than the former. To judge from the records
in NED, 32/err was not used in the North. In OE it is
found in Corp. gl., Aelfric and Blickl. Hom.’, in ME mostly
in West Midl. (Ancr. R., Rel. Songs ed. Percy Soc., Destr.
of Troy) and in the South (Lamb., Layam), of Midl. texts
in the Best. (Matzner). But it may also have had another
sense which B. thought objectionable, viz. that of ‘lust, wan-
tonness’. Finally the possibility should be mentioned that
3ferr in B.'s language might have been an obsolescent word
beginning to be superseded by gvedz3, although this must
be looked upon as doubtful when we consider the conser-
vative tendency of B.
Another word disapproved of by B. is opennitke, occurring ofennitke >
in expressions such as wipp opennlike spaeche or purrh tfullopenn
opennlike bisne, which have been altered to wzpp (purrh) all
full openn speche. Such corrections are found in ll. 376,
2208, 2822, 2838, 6545, 6573, 8410, g606, 9796, 10355, 11674,
have been erased and grediqnesse substituted (10210, 10213, 10216, 10234,
10238, 10240) and in col. 254 three (10177, 10184, 10136). Which of these
instances does he suppose to have been written g7fer7-- In col. 253 there
is only one 3é/errnesse (gif), but according to my notes grediznesse has
been inserted (thus both the edit.). It may be added that the marginal
insertions are easily overlooked because they are often placed in the
margin far away from the text they belong to. In this connection two
other erroneous references a few Il. below in the same paper (p. 133)
may be pointed out: 3e/fen, col. 354 (Holt, 1, 10, 182) for 4¢/e, see collat.
on this 1.; further 3af, col. 102 (Holt, I, 2473) tor 3a col. 162, 1. 6472.
1 In the WS version of St. Luke 16, 14 (Corp, MS) ‘qui erant auari’
is rendered by fa pe gifre weron: the corresponding passage in Li.,
however, runs da de weron gitsaras.
Google
30
I291I, 15435. A quite analogous instance is the correction
purrh witerrlike bisne > hurrh all full witerr etc. 6835,
likewise in h. B. In |. 2915 a third adj. in -dzke has been
erased, full redelike bisne having been replaced by full god
7 halsumm bisne. The following instances left uncorrected are
found: wpb opennttke speche 2804, 9514, 9586, 10380, 18782,
Jull opennlike. bisne (acc.) 2900, purrh opennlike bisne 7792.
In spite of these inadvertencies, which no doubt are
unintentional on the part of the reviser, it is obvious that B.
disapproved of all these adj. for one reason or other. At
first sight it might be suspected that the reviser considered
them to be grammatically incorrect because they have the
ending -e, in spite of their not being preceded by any
defining word, that consequently this -e was added for met-
rical reasons, contrary to the ordinary use, just as was the
case with gode, gide, mine (see above p. 7 foll.). That, however,
cannot be the explanation here, for in the case of dis- and
polysyllabic adj., not only in oblique cases but also in nom.,
an -¢ is so often met with in this position that, whatever the
reason may be, this cannot be due to the metre.’ Sachse
(p. 36) enumerates 10 instances of -dke before a cons., where
-e is Inorganic. To his list may be added:
an erplike mann 18322, gastlike lif (acc.) 17311, wett
(acc.) 14298. When preceded by prep., -/zke is found even
before a vowel: off corplike ahhte 5667, forr (off) nan eorpltke
unnseollpe 4753, 4839, off tlc eorplike unnseollpe 4853, forr
corplike etc. 5655; and before a cons. the instances of -Zzke
are very numerous: zuutill fleshlike lare 14275, forr heofenn-
like mede 404, erplike mede 15923, epeltke gillte 10172, 2
whilwendlike kinde 18790, off hefennlike ping 16696, purrh
he(o)fennlitke mahhte 1844, takenn 3331, 7139, wibp he(o)fenn-
like lare 17836, wede 3677, lechedom 1855, 1863 etc.
It is impossible to assume that all these instances of -¢
are metrical forms, and besides, it would be absurd to think
that B., who seems to be rather consistent in his corrections,
1 cf. NED under -/y; «In the Ormulum -Zc (rarely -dzke) is used
before a vowel and at the end of a line. and -3 before a cons.; the
inflected form -dke (dissyllabic) seems often to .be used for metrical
reasons, where grammar would require the uninflected form.»
Google
31
should have corrected so few examples. In my opinion the
explanation is to be sought in the use and function of the
suffix -léke (-l73)' < OE -lic Prim. Germ. -/ka, Goth. -ezks.
If we start with opennlike < OE openlic (ModE openly), the
adj. which is most frequently corrected, it obviously has the
meaning of ‘plain’, ‘manifest’ in the instances under discussion.
In OE it had the same sense (NED, Schon, Bild. des Adj. p. 76),
i.e. the suffix in this word has ceased to be felt as living, having
no special sense, not to be compared with other similar forma-
tions (noun + -/zc) such as OE deadlic, eald- etc., where -/ic has
a special function and is therefore felt to be a suffix. Two adj.
ending in -Zc in the O. are of this type: uxnsez3,enndlic, -like,
-13, unnsexhenniic (-lic = able to), efenniic (see edit. gloss.).
Two formations, however, seem to belong to the same kind as
opennlike, viz. whilwendlic, -like ‘transitory’, OE hwzlwendlic
< OE hwilwende ‘temporary’, and epelzke 10172 ‘facilis; unim-
portant, trifling’? < OE eadelic. In the formations noun + -c,
on the contrary, the suffix is always felt to be living:
e(o)rpltc, -like, -l23, fleshtic, -ltke, -l14, gastlic, -like, he(ojfenn-
like, -li3, manelike, staffiike, -l3, weorelldlke, -li34, wunn-
derrlike, -lt3, pewwleke, -lic, -ltke, -l13, here meaning ‘having
the appearance of, being appropriate to’ (NED), ‘pertaining
to’. Now I believe that the reviser always conceived the
suffix -/zke to havea special sense or function and disapproved
of the derivatives openniike and witerrlike because he conceived
them to mean ‘having the appearance of openn, witerr —
which was of course not the sense intended by A. As to
redelike <OE redlic it originally meant ‘advisable’, sub-
sequently ‘prudent, wise’, in which latter sense it was evid-
ently used by A. But by B, it was probably conceived to
have only the former sense, and therefore it was replaced
by god 7 halsumm.
A. employs ke33sere (kez3seress), kex3se-and kasere, kaserr.,
B. has erased £e33se-, occurring in the compound ke33seking,
and inserted faserr- instead: 3270, 3272, 3294, 8241, 8259,
8271, 9165, 9308, 10196. (cf. edit. notes on Il. 3270, 8241,
1. In the O. there is often an interchange of -zke, (ic) and -/73 in
the same adj. For -/73 see Bjérkman, Loanw. p. 158 footnote.
2 This sense has been proved to be the right one by Brate, p. 33._
Google
he, 45€ >
Raser?.
nawithht >
nohht.
32
9308 and Brate p. 47). 1. 9169 zllke king is substituted for
ke33seking in the same h. (B.); in |. 3519 4e33seress appears
unerased. In compounds £e33se- seems to be the ordinary
form in A.’s dialect, found 11 times compared with 2 kaserr-
275, 9469. As a simplex, on the contrary, kaserr (kasere)
is preferred 3537, 8301, 8329, 9164, 9172.
It is uncertain whether B. has omitted to correct £¢33s5eress
on purpose. We have already seen that he is not always
consistent in his alterations. But on the other hand the
reason why B. has erased £e33se- is probably not so much
the diphthong -¢33- (for the origin of this see Bjorkman,
Loanw. p. 56), which was well-known to him from other words
such as 6¢33sk, be33¢enn, rez3Senn etc., as the formation £¢335e-
from e33ser(e) with loss of r. cf. O. Scand. ketsare-domr,
keisarligr etc. It might be supposed that this seemingly
un-English form has been coined by the author, on the
analogy of OE cyne- O.'s kine-(?).
1.6949 was first written 7 xawzhht ma3z3denn clene but altered
in h. B. into 7 xokht mayz3denn full clene (edit. note onl. 6949).
This correction shows that B. considers the proper ne-
gation to be mohht and not mawthht. The latter word was
no doubt archaic already in O.’s time, since it is found only
three times (10351, 12967, 15550—1) and then only as a
negation, never as an indef. pron. like zohht, whereas nohhi
appears on every other page. The same is no doubt the
case with awzhkht, recorded only three times (6905, 12335,
16979), in the sense of ‘anything’, ‘somewhat’. The synonym
ohht is extremely usual both as a pronoun and adv. A.
evidently had recourse to these dissyllables in extreme cases
as a sort of substitute. It may be asked why, under such
circumstances, B. has corrected only one out of seven in-
stances. Either they may have escaped his attention or he
may have found it difficult to correct these passages without
violating the metre. 1. 6949 for instance was much the worse
for his correction from a metrical point of view.
With regard to the occurrence of zazwiht and nohi (as
negations) in other ME texts, the latter seems to be more
frequent than the former, zawtht being found by the side of
noht only in Layam. (3 okt, 3 nawtht, 2 na-, nowit, Lucht
Google
33
pp. 59, 68), Leg. Kath. and Curs. M. Other records have
the syncopated form accord. to NED.
To the category of words erased also belong mineteress
and wharrfenn, which appear only in erased A.-text. The
Il. 15560—I, 15794—5 are in the margin for 7 mzneteress
s@tenn per||To wharrfenn pexzre sillferr (see edit. notes).
The same is the case with two other parallel passages, the
former |. 15807, which is in the margin for three ll. erased:
pe mineteress sillferr | 7 oferrwarrp unnridelry | pe maneteress
bordess, the latter comprising 5 marginal ll. for a correspond-
ing number erased in the text: fa mineteress patt he draf|
ut off hiss faderr temmple| patt haffdenn alle setenn per| To
wharrfenn pex3re sillferr| pez3 werenn t pe temmple per.
Finally there is an illeg. er. 1. 15567 where pe mineteress
has first been written, as can be deduced from a parallel
passage. Il. 15562—67 are repeated exactly in ll. 15802—
07, but whereas the last |. of the latter passage has been
substituted for three Il. erased (see above), that is only partly
the case with the corresponding |. of the former, in which
pe bordess 7 te is written in s. h. but the last word sz//ferr has
been kept. Immediately after this 1., however, the ll. 7
oferrwarrp per i pe flor|| unnriddlis pex3re bordess are erased,
which, if not exactly agreeing with the last two Il. of the
passage erased |. 15807, are very like them both as to form
and contents. Consequently there can scarcely be any doubt
that 1. 15557 originally ran fe mineteress sillferr, as did the
first 1. of the passage erased |. 15807.
The edit. gives us no information as to the h. in which
all these marg. insertions are made. In my opinion they
are due to B. Apart from the handwriting, which I consider
to be that of B., it will be remembered that the mode of
erasing is that characteristic of B. Further it is obvious
that, owing to the insert. 16008—12, two successive ll., 16012
—3, have come to begin with the same words: Forr patt
te33. It is not very likely that the first h. [== the author]
should have been guilty of such a thing.
The chief reason for these corrections and erasures seems
to have been a wish on the part of the reviser to avoid the
words mzneteress and wharrfenn. Instead of the former, cir-
3— e203. S. Holm.
Google
mineteress.
34
cumlocutions are used such as menn att bordess 15560, menn
wipp sillferr 15794, the latter is replaced by denenn. It
may also be pointed out that A. has followed his source’
more closely than B., who is more independent here in this
respect. This is seen from the marg. addition 15800—1,
which must be in the same h., 7 purrh pe prestess were
fe33| Sette to lenenn sillferr and from |. 16008 fa menn patt
wipp pe prestess fe, the source of which is not, as far as I
know, the Bible. Such considerations may also have had
something to do with his (B.'s) correction of the ll. in question.
ll. 15567 and 15807, which have been erased without any
substitution, were probably considered to be unnecessary
repetitions, —
The word minetere was used to render Lat. ‘nummula-
rius’ from c. 950 (Li, Ru’, Ru*, WS yospels) down to about
1300 (NED). In Wicklif’s Bible (1380), however, the French
loan-word chaungeris is substituted for the vernacular word.
As early as in Curs. M. pe chaungcours is found in the same
sense (NED). By the side of this special scriptural sense,
minetere also had the meaning of ‘moneyer; one who stamps
money’. This may have been the reason why the word soon
became extinct in the first sense, and why it was disapproved
of by B.
wharrfenn <OE hwearfian generally means ‘to turn’, ‘to
change’ and is often met with in the O. in this sense: Datt
win patt iss||ut off pe waterr wharrfedd 14498—9, wharrfedd
hiss hew 19251, hiss name... shollde wharrfenn 13289. But
in the specified sense of ‘to change money’ IJ have not found
it used elsewhere, either in OE or ME.
c. Stylistic corrections.
Some alterations made by B. seem to have a purely
stylistic purpose. To this category belong in the first place
the erasures of aznud. Apparently under the influence of the
1 St. John II 14—16: »Et inuenit in templo uendendes boues et oues
et columbas, et nummularios sedentes...omnes eiecit de templo, oues
_ quoque et boues: et nummulariorum effudit zs, et mensas subuertit».
Google
35
Biblical style, the first scribe has made frequent use of the
conjunction aznd when beginning new sentences or even new
homilies or sections. In such cases azmd has been erased
and replaced by other words. Sometimes there is a very
slight change, e. g. Aund sex3de> pa se33de (197), Annd
forr patt> Forrpi patt (10257), Annd z fa> Unnderr pa
(10648) etc., but sometimes whole |]. have been erased, e. g.
7631', 12566. Apart from the corrections already mentioned,
the following have been found: 3388, 11319, 12720, 14000,
155387, 19585. Besides, the first word in 1. 7571 forrprthht
se time comm perio is over an er. of which only the letter
A..is legible. On comparing this |. with ]. 11319, which
was first written Axnd son se crist wass fullhtnedd ter but
altered by B. into Forrprihht se tesuss fullhinedd wass, one
scarcely hesitates to assume that ]. 7571 originally ran Anud
son sé etc.
Three of the above-mentioned alterations are declared
by the edit. to be in h. B. (see edit. notes on Il. 197, 3388,
7631). The others have been left undecided. There can be
no doubt, however, that these corrections, all of a similar
kind and having the same object, are due to the same h.,
namely that of B.
Another stylistic alteration is purrh patt> perpurrh surrh patt>
appearing 7 times: 1548, 1566, 2908, 2924, 6544, 6678, 8041. perpurrh.
In all the places mentioned, we find shortly before the cor-
rected adv. expression purrh patt the conj. purrh patt or
purrh patt tatt. Owing to these alterations a confusion of
the two different functions of furrh patt is avoided. Two
of these corrections have been ascribed to h. B. by the edit.
(notes on Il. 2904, 2908), but all are undoubtedly due to
the same h.
In the passage 7 crist iss nemmnedd swipe rihht | He- 9 gure > onn
lennde onn ennglissh speche 4272—3 the words onn ennglissh ennglissh.
are written in the margin in h. B. (edit. note on this |.) for 0 jure
erased. Consequently according to the first scribe English is
the language of the people, i. e. /ewedd follc (D. §5), for
' This 1. may also have been altered for other reasons; see p. 41 foll.
? The alteration of this 1. has not been noted by the edit.
Google
36
whom the homilies are written, whereas his own and that of
his class is Latin: onm ure latin speche 16435, 16439.
hemm > A similar correction appears Il. 4490—98 but is appar-
3unnc. ently made for other reasons. The passage in question contains
a commentary on one of the commandments: .. 7% xan operr
manness wif| Ne xeorne nohht to nehzhenn...|\ To filenn swa
3unnc bape. It is seen that the pron. of the 2" pers. sg.
and dual are employed here. In the following ll., however,
the author illogically changes the pers. into the 3° plur.:
hemm 4495, here 4497, 1e33 4498. This inadvertency on the
part of A. has been removed by B., who inserts 321,
zunnkerr, 3itt respectively instead (edit. note on 1. 4495).’
illke > In |. 8807 wipp lke 3tfess is altered to wihp whillke
whillke. etc, (cf. edit. note on this 1.). Without this correction the
sentence-structure would be illogical and the meaning obscure.
We expect a ‘that’-clause dependent on unnderrstanndenn |.
8805, which is also presumed by 7 ¢att 8800.
annd > pat. The alteration 7 (= annd)> patt |. 8449 (see edit. note)
has a similar purpose. Here two ‘that’-clauses are meant to
be coordinated: wésste’... patt he per haffde mahhte|7 he
wass hofenn etc., 7 (= annd) standing for 7 patt.
werenn ba> l. 117 was first written 7 c@erenn ba biforenn godd but
fe33 werenn. altered to 7 ¢e33 werenn biforenn, etc. The reason of the
alteration is seen from the context. At |. 117 a new sentence
begins, and here a pronom. subject referring both to zacari3e
112 and ax duhhtiz wif 113 is required. This has been over-
looked by the author in consequence of his following the
Latin original too closely. The erased |. is a literal trans-
lation of St. Luke I, 6 «Erant autem iusti ambo ante Deum»,
erant being rendered werenn only. The edit. has not given
any indication as to the h. in which this alteration is made.
The similarity of this correction to the two preceding ones
speaks in favour of B.?
takenn till > ll. 8483—5 were first written... oc wipp crist|7 till pe
takenn with. rihhte lafe|7 till pe rihhte crisstenndom, the prep. wepp being
1 The correction 3¢ wilenn > mann wile D. 111 (edit. note) is pro-
bably p. m., as is assumed by the edit.
2 A suggestion that the form 4a might have been disapproved of
by the reviser must be discarded, as this form often appears elsewhere:
tex, werenn ba 373, 745, ¢343 ba 7513, 12372, 13090.
Google
37
used before the first subst. and 7// before the two latter,
although coordinated with the first. B. has altered the two
wll into wepp (see edit. note). — The phrase fakenn wipbp
is often used in the O. in the sense of ‘to receive, to accept’,
e. g. 104, 1377, 1516, 1582—3, 13789, 13797 etc., perhaps
adopted from O. Scand. ‘taka vid’ (NED). The prep. 2//,
here originally used in connection with ¢akenn, may be due
to contamination of takenn wipp and takenn ill or to (refl.),
the latter phrase meaning ‘take to, pass over to’. cf. off
ba patt tokenn hemm tll crist 16766; 7 toc himm to he
deofell 356.
l. 5029 zn hellepine werrpenn is altered into dun inntill inn helle.
helle etc. (cf. edit. note). Both expressions seem to be#ime>inntill
synonymous, so the object of the alteration is not quite ad
clear. It is probable, however, that the prep. zz¢d/ is more
appropriate in connection with werrpenn to express ‘motion
to’, zz in the examples found expressing ‘rest in a place’:
7 shulenn unnderrfon wipp himm orrmete pine inn helle
13686—7, To drexhenn...inn helle 16104—5, bttacnepp ...
patt wa|patt iss inn hellepine 3862—3, fallenn inntill eche
dep inx helle 4292—3. The prep. zuntell or unntzll, on the
contrary, seem to be usual with verbs of motion: zworrpenn
beon (wass)| Dun inntill hellepine 8417—8, 14938—9, fallenn
. enntill hellepine 11856—8, fell... inntill hellepine 13676
—7, shulenn inntill helle 1205, fellenn dun|unntill helle 1398
—9, farenn (forenn) inntill helle 8112, 8408.
In 1. 3083 patt ysa[yas] spacc off is erased for patt witess ysayas >
haffdenn cwidded in h. B. (see edit. note). Probably the “~#ess.
latter expression was preferred in order to avoid repetition
of the words fatt ysayas, the opening words of the next
sentence |. 3084.
l. 4954 was first written currpshipe shewenn opre menn don forr-
but altered to Zo wurrpenn (MS wurrppenn) exywher alle yenn > don
menn. The two expressions are on the whole synonymous ?/?73/e"”-
but show a difference from the point of view of syntax, the
inf. in the erased t. having no fo whereas this word is added
in the corrected |. The inf. depends on dop pe 4956 in the
sense of ‘make’ + obj. + inf. or ‘cause’ + obj. + to + inf. A.
similar correction appears in |. 4962, pwerrt ut forrsifenn,
Google
38
grammatically connected with dop fe mann 4960, being
replaced by Ad! to forr3zzfenn. Here, too, the sense is not
changed by the alteration. It therefore seems obvious that
the reviser has altered the passages in question because he
preferred the gerundial inf. to the simple one after doz in
the sense mentioned above. An investigation’ of the usage
in this respect in the O. shows that the simple inf. was only
occasionally employed in the position mentioned. Of go
instances found there are 75 of zo + inf. after don in the
active voice, 4 after the same verb in the passive. Consequently
the corrections are made in accordance with the common
usage in the O. Now the editor declares the former correc-
tion to be p. m. but the latter in h. B. (edit. notes on Il. 4954,
4962). Apart from the fact that it is not very likely that
two alterations, made for the same reasons and separated
from one another only by a few Il., should have been due
to different scribes, the handwriting, which, as for as I am
aware, is the same, points to B. as the corrector.
l. 3565 runs patt zesuss nohht ne wollde. The word
nohht is, however, put in for crzs¢ erased in h. B. (edit. note
on |. 3565). Thus the original version of the |. would be
1 Weyhel, who has dealt with this matter, says p. 26: »Der Inf. mit
fo ist am haufigsten». Only part of the material, however, is given. by him,
the figures for the simple and the gerundial inf. being 8 and 21 respect-
ively. As from these a wrong idea may be formed as to the real propor-
tion between the two groups, I will add here the instances not found in
Weyhel. Of the simple inf.: 5250, 5736. Of the gerundial inf.: D. 340,
2951, 3658, 3659, 4178 (B-t.), 4950, 4958, 5253, 6667, 6679, 6981, 6993,
7162, 7447, 7459 (the 5 last in insert. A.-t.), 7594, 8822, 9840, 9856, 10349,
10449, 10493, 11860, 11872, 11923, 12465, 12782, 12835, 12841, 12935,
12980, 13277, 13285, 13549, 13759, 13969, 14140, 14193, 14237, 14313,
14344, 14859, 15173, 15470, 15809, 16097, 16205, 16597, 16791, 17396,
17504, 17628, 17640, 18189, 18550, 18738, 19634, 19650. The example 1.
13285 patt dop uss unnderrstanndenn, from which the same author draws
the conclusion that Zo + inf. is not exclusively employed when the object
is a dat. (p. 27), erroneously stands for ... dop uss tunnderrstanndenn
(thus Holt) in W.’s edit., on which his work was chiefly based (Weyhel
p. 2). The records 8148, 16084, which seem to be given as instances of
don in the passive voice followed by an accus. with the inf. (ibid. p. 27,
é) must be eliminated, as /o +- inf. here has another syntactical function,
-to standing for forr to. cf, Einenkel, Pauls Gr. I, p. 1076, Kellner, Syntax
§§ 401 — 405.
Google
39
patt zesuss crist ne wollde. Provided that this reconstruction
is correct, one would be inclined to assume that B. made
this alteration in order to avoid the combination zesuss crist,
always occurring in the form zesu crist, of which there are
over 200 instances in the O. (Reichmann p. 33). In oblique
cases it is inflected as if it were one word, gen. zesu cristess,
acc. zesu Crist whereas zesus(s) when not followed by
‘crist’ has the gen. zesusess and the acc. zesumm! (for
examples see Reichmann |. c.). The expression seems to
have been adopted from French (cf. |. c.). It may now be
objected, and rightly, that A., who always wrote zesu crist
elsewhere, would scarcely have written zesuss crist here on
purpose. Secondly, if zesuss is to be looked upon as a
miswriting on the part of A., we should have expected B. to have
corrected it to zesu. It would therefore seem that 1. 3565
was first written Patt zesu crist ne wollde and that B. pre-
ferred the negatives zohht ne to ne alone, by which alteration
we get treble negation, zowwhar |. 3566 belonging to the
same clause.
The use of negation in the O., which, as far as I
know, has not been dealt with elsewhere, is too extensive
a subject to be treated at large in this connection. To
understand what the alteration under discussion implies from
a syntactical point of view, it may be enough to indicate
the chief points regarding the usage with verbs.
To negative the verb the double negation xe-nxohhi (or
vice versa) is mostly employed, occurring regularly in prin-
cipal clauses. In certain subordinate clauses, however, the
single we is occasionally found: after the conditional 32 16
ne, 31 ne-nohht; in final clauses the corresponding figures are
7:16, in consecutive clauses 5: 14, after pokk 3:6. In sthat-
clauses we meet with ze after the reflexive 3zemenn and
lokenn = ‘take care’ (6901, 7399, 11374, 11983; cf., however,
6144, 7864), after dadd 8620, and pohhie 12442, after forrbed
9834 (pleonastic). In B.-t. the material is rather scarce, but here
double negation is always the case: 452, 9039, 9O5I, 10142.
1 Reichmann |. c. and p. 84 erroneously gives the form des 2216
as being corrected by K. from zesuss. The form meant by K. is zesz =
tesumm.
Google
pe boc.
40
With regard to the present case, 1. e. the usage in
clauses containing words with a negative prefix such as
na(n), nani(3), nefre, nowwpberr, nowwhar, these are as a
rule strengthened by ze only (about 170 instances), less often
by ze—nohhi, viz. D. 269, 121, 1624—5, 3224—5, 4490—I1,
4520—1, 4752—3, 4838—9, 5008 — 9, 5130—1, 5740 —1, 6105—6,
7404, 7846—7, 7858—9, 7983, 10221—3, 11645—6, 11985—z7,
12228—9, 12238—9, 12872—3, 13930—I, 16136—7, 18338,
altogether 25 instances. Comparatively seldom ax without
any strengthening negative occurs: 415, 431, 1178, 5262,
6962, 8622, 12232."
From these statistics it is seen that the alteration in
question implies a deviation from the most common usage
in the O. and represents a less common case, when in addi-
tion to ze the stronger zohkht is put in to make the negation
still more impressive and emphatic. cf. Jespersen, On Nega-
tion p. 64 ff., Wiilfing pp. 296—7. It may appear unlikely
that a stylistic subtlety of this kind should have caused the
reviser to alter the text. Therefore it is possible that, over-
looking the negative adv. zowwhar 3566, he was struck by
the extraordinary use of the single neg. ze in a ¢hat-clause
governed by sez, of which, as a matter of fact, no instance
is found in the O.
Group 2.
As has already been pointed out, I include under this
group the corrections which bear upon the contents.
Among the many set phrases and expressions which
are so characteristic of A.’s style, those of which the words
pe boc form part, are the most typical and usual. Still, only
a few traces of them are found in the printed edit. of the
O., because most of them have been erased in h. B. and
other expressions substituted. But as they are.only crossed
out with the pen, they are all legible, and have often been
noticed in the edit. notes, although he has not thought it
1 In the type ze—ne—nan, e. g. 2565, 2567, 7168—9, the first ze has
the sense of ‘nor’ and is consequently analogous to man ne@fre etc, from
a syntactical point of view.
Google
41
«necessary to note each instance of their occurrence» (edit.
note on 1]. 6814, 6820; see also his notes on Il. 111, 6605). Most
frequently they take some of the forms swa summ pe boc
uss kipebp (lerepp, tellebp), alls uss se33p pe boc, or only
se33p pe boc. No less than 109 such passages have been
erased and as a rule replaced by other similar phrases, such
as patt witt tu wel to sope, fatt witt tu full wel, witt tu wel
or wzss to fulle sop. Occasionally other expressions have
been chosen, e. g. 7 fa comm alls uss se33p pe boc || patt godd
hemm wollde shedenn > ]Tta comm time to patt godd | hemm
wollde onn erpe shedenn 5202—3, (7 he wass ¢ cwarrterrne
pa)| swa summ etc.> onnfasst te kingess bure 8134, Forr
crist «ss 2 pe boc purrh stan > Forr tesu crist iss wtss purrh
stan 15070, (Off abraham) uss sex3p pe boc > wrat moyses
14656, (patt wass wel swipe nipfull ped)||swa summ etc.
> Vfulle off modiynesse (18254—5).
In two instances fe boc has been corrected into godd-
spell (15076, 15542), 1. 7631 to pe goddspell (cf. p. 35), once
(18020) to sop dare. Sometimes there has been a very slight
alteration, pe having been erased for sof: 295 (in sert. A.-t.),
1064, 1984, 3249, 3633, 4770, 15642, 15660, 15706, 16295,
19941. Notice also pe doc uss biddepp > Forr boc etc. 13064.
Another correction which is met with is pe doc > latin
boc: 10698, 16296, 18086, to which category also belongs o
pe boc > o latin 8213. |. 8047 doc (without defin. art.), and
l. 4452 patt boc are both altered to /atzm doc.
We may also include here the alteration halz3 doc > latin
boc, occurring four times: 1130, 1182, 6644, 10165. In 1. 16826
the words uppo /atin are over er.; probably an original
upponn halt has been erased by B.
Finally it may be added that pe goddspell in the common
phrase swa summ pe goddspell kibepp is erased twice (150,
234) and replaced in the former place by /orr patt he wollde
himm frofrenn, in the latter by the typical B.-correction paté
witt tu wel to sope.
Before discussing the purpose of these alterations we
must enter upon another question which is intimately con-
nected with this, viz. what the author himself means by the
designations doc, pe boc, sop boc, latin boc, halty boc. The
Google
42
edit. does not seem to have formed any definite opinion on
this matter, to judge from the following statement in foot-
note®® p. LX: »In his quotations Ormin cites the Scriptures
as the goddspell-boc, sop boc, pe boc, and pe latin boc and
cites also other authorities as pe boc, latin boc.» Sarrazin
touches upon the problem in the beginning of his work
»Uber die Quell.» etc., where he says (p. 1): »Orrm selbst
beruft sich mehrmals auf ein lateinisches buch, dessen er-
klarung und auslegung er folge, nennt aber nie den namen
eines autors». Although he makes no definite statement, it
is understood from the results this scholar arrives at, that
he takes /atzn doc to denote Bede or other authorities except
the Bible. Finally Weinmann? in a treatise entitled »Uber
den Gebrauch des Artikels im O.» p. 17 assumes without
argument that all the above-mentioned designations, with the
exception of halzz boc, which is not mentioned, denote the
Bible. The question becomes still more complicated because
latin boc occurs only once in A.-t. and sop doc is introduced ©
by h. B. To begin with, we must therefore. investigate
whether the context can give us any clue.
In unerased A.-t. I have found 22 instances of doc, doke
without any article. It is easy to see that most of them do
not denote the Bible. In P. 27 we get Forrpz patt ct (= pe
goddspell) iss sett o boc meaning ‘written in a book’ or
simply ‘written down’. Similar instances are found Il. 13937,
19331. o boc (boke) has the same sense in combination with
writenn:... forrpi pati wt (pe goddspell) wass | .. All wrokhi
7 writenn uppo boc (D. 159—161), patt ysayas haffde se33a |
7 writenn uppo boke (3084—5); Forr writenn iss 0 boc, pait
he .. (11361, 11909); wretenn stannt o boke 11390, 19438.
1 pe latin boc never appears, only Jatin boc without def. art.
? This scholar has not taken into consideration the material of the
erased t., which would have been possible, at least to a certain extent,
by means of the edit.’s notes. As it is, his collections of doc and pe boc
etc. give an erroneous idea of the use of the def. art. with this word.
But even apart from the er, t., the material is not complete. haliz boc,
of which 11 inst, are found, is not given at all. Further the following
records may be added: under 6 p. 17 (0c without art.) 11669, 13064
(B.-t.), 16611, 11909, 13937, 16823, 16829, 19331, 19438; under goddspellboc
with def. art : 7402, 9095.
Google
43
Three of these instances, which appear in a paraphrase of the
20" Latin text, seem to be direct translations of the Latin
‘scriptum est’ Matth. IV, 6, 10. That the passages thus re-
ferred to are as a rule to be found in the Bible, has nothing
to do with this matter. cf. also Dus zt zs on boke set pat
man cleped fistologet; (Bestiar. Matzner) and the synony-
mous expression in the O. o write settenn 3543, settenn upp o
writt 3282. Further, the phrase 0 doke leredd is met with
8932, 10268, 11966, 14235, 14277, 16823, 16829; it does not
mean ‘learned in the Bible’ but ‘learned in books generally’,
_‘book-learned’. Cf. dog he ne be lered on no boken (Gen. &
Exod. Matzner) and docilerede men (Layam. NED). Con-
sequently there are 16 instances of o doc (60ke) which mean
‘in a book’ or ‘in books’, i. e. in which doc is used indefinit-
ely. Therefore it would seem that the same would be true’
of the two remaining examples Forr fale off seoffne stannt
o boc || Forr mtkell ping to tacnenn 5348--9, 5762—3, but
that is not the case. It is quite obvious from the context
that they mean ‘for the number seven stands in the Bible
to denote many things’, seven referring to the seven prayers
of the Pater Noster (5350—2) and the seven ‘beatitudes’’
Matth. V, 1—10, (5636—5757) cf. o goddspellboc 5634.
Boc se33p etc. 11343, 11669, and 11373 are somewhat
doubtful as to their meaning. The context shows that they
all correspond to ‘scriptum est’ of the Vulgate (S. Matth.
IV, 4, 7), so that we expect them to mean ‘a book says’ or
‘it is written in a book’. But on the other side they refer
to definite passages in the Old Test. (Deut. VIII, 3, VI, 16).
If these have been in the author's mind, doc would be inter-
preted as the Book = the Old Test. doc se33p 1. 15120 refers
to the Old Testam.
In erased t. two instances of doc are found: the first in
the following context: Forr boc uss se33p to fulle sop| patt
‘att man iss forrwarryedd || patt iss an hunndredd winnterr
ald || 7 follshepp childess garess 8047-50. This strange
statement has been identified by the edit. with Isaiah LXV.
1 As a matter of fact these are eight in number, but the last has
evidently been intentionally left out because the author was anxious to save
the number 7 for his allegorical interpretations.
Google
44
20, but it has been transcribed and connected with I Cor.
XIII. 11 (edit. note on Il. 8047, 8051). Therefore the author has
probably taken it from one of the many Latin commentaries
on the Bible which were used in the Middle Ages. Still, it
is possible that doc here stands for the Bible. So it seems
to have been interpreted by the reviser B., who, recognizing
the Latin commentary, altered Joc inte /atin boc. As for
the other instance Forr boc uss sex3p (> witt tu wel B.)
patt xerrsalem | Bitacnepp gripess sihhfbe 6558—9 it is
easily ascertained that the passage referred to by doc is
not taken from the Bible but probably from Bede (see Sar- |
razin p. 10), but whether A., mistaking it fora passage from
Holy Writ, means doc to denote ‘the Book of books’ or
simply ‘a book’, it is impossible to decide. Anyhow, B. seems
to have taken it to signify the former and made his correc-
tion accordingly. cf. p. 46.
Consequently the result of this investigation is that of 24
instances of doc (doke) without defin. article in erased and
unerased t., 2 refer to the New Testam., 1 to the Old
Testam., 4 may refer to the same source, 16 do not denote
the Bible, 1 is doubtful.
With regard to fe doc most examples in unerased t. refer
to the Old Test., viz. swa summ pe boc hemm tahhte 1329,
4155, 7578, 7688, 8894, 10413, Forr swa to turrnenn all pe
boc 14240; also 14274, 14282, 14286. The Bible as a whole
is apparently meant by o fe doc 1827 and off all pe boc z
godess hus 5500. Of the numerous set phrases alluded to
above only three have been left uncorrected: oun hirdess
ehhite, sexxp pe boc 599 (insert. A.t.), swa summ pe boc uss
kipebb 5001, 7 forrpi sex3p pe boc full sop 17220. OF
these the 1° refers to the Old Test. (see p. 67), the 2"¢ to
Matth. XXII 37—39 (edit. note ]. 4996). The 3°4 bears
upon a passage (17221—3) which does not seem to have
been taken directly from the Bible but which is probably
based on Acts XV, 9 «... fide purificans corda eorum».
The passages referred to by pe doc in erased t. are
often hard to identify, first because all the sources of the O.
are not yet known, in spite of Sarrazin’s investigations, se-
condly because some expressions which originally seem to
Google
45
go back to the Bible, appear in a transcribed and corrupt
form, which indicates that they have passed through the
hands of later commentators. Such cases must therefore be
looked upon as doubtful. Of the instances in which pe doc
has been erased without any corresponding substitution the
following refer to the New Test.; 111, 749, 3728 Philip. II,
7—8, 7214 Matth. II, 3, 7671 S. Luke IJ, 37, 8155 Matth. II,
22, 8287 S. Luke III, 1 (partly), 11048 S. Luke III, 23, 13241
S. John I, 41, 17928 ib. II, 22, 19738 Acts II, 38 (partly).
Notice also 15542, 15076, where B. has replaced pe doc by
the clearer goddspell. To the Old Test. refer: 5202--3 254
Kings II, 1, 5862 Levit. 9, 2—3, 6382 Gen. XXIX, 6809 ib.
X, 1, 6988 Josh. XIX, 15, 8592 Gen. V, 22, 24, 1137 partly
according to Levit. IV, VI, IX, 14656, 14661, Gen. XVII,
19, XXI, 4, 14684 partly according to Gen. XXII, 12.
Most instances, however, refer to passages which have
been derived from other sources: 565, 737, 1200, 1275, 2002,
2C49, 2246, 2519, 4147, 4128, 4147, 5896, 6605, 6699, 6725,
6779, 6814, 6820, 7044, 7082, 7321, 7679, 8134, 9550, 9678,
9759, 9789, 9872, 9955, 10585 (Sarrazin p. 14), 10601 (see
collat. on this 1.), 10752, 10794 (Sarrazin p. 14), 10900, 10961,
12672, 13621, 13629, 13762 (Sarrazin p. 17), 13794, 14179
(Sarrazin p. 17), 14476, 14594, 14628, 14712, 14830, 14924,
15020, 15070, 15134, 15207, 15848, I590I, 15945, 16134 (see
edit. note) 16172, 16390 (Sarrazin p. 19), 16421, 16893, 16935,
18020, 18022, 18254, 19075.
Doubtful cases are 4051 (context lacking) 8516 (cf. Acts
XIII), 8720 (cf. Malachi IV, 5) 9179 (cf. S. Luke III, 2),
12218 (context lacking), 13353 (cf. Acts IV, 11 and 15070—1), ©
17349 (cf. 1 Cor. XII).
Still the instances in A.-t., erased and unerased, by which
Scripture or parts of it were denoted seem to prove that in
the O. pe boc was the common designation for the Bible’,
which is not surprising as it was often used in the same
sense also in other ME records, e. g. Pass. of our Lord
it is write in pe bok, Glouc. suerte vpe the bok, Curs. M.
1 Scripture and Bible do not seem to have come into use until about
1300; the first instances according to NED appear in Curs. Mundi: a/s
sais pe bibul, als sais scripture.
Google
halt, boc
latin boc
46
als satis pe bock, Hamp. als pe boke beres wytnesse; even
without any article: Trin. Hom. We radep on boc (NED,
Matzner). It would therefore appear that the examples of
the type alls uss se33p pe boc, swa summ pe boc uss kibepp
in erased and unerased t. were also meant to denote the
same thing, but that the author was often unable to disting-
uish between what really stood in the Bible and the addi-
tions and expositions of the commentaries he made use of.
Another possibility is that O., simple as he was, meant by
pe boc any authority he happened to have before him when
writing his homilies, sometimes the Bible, or the Gospels at
least, sometimes Bede or other commentators. That seems
to be the only explanation of the following passage: 7 3uw
birrp unnderrstanndenn wel | Swa summ pe boc uss kipepp |
patt mikell floce off opre menn || Comm forp wipp pa preo
kingess | Ut off pe kalldewisshe land | Zell dbeppleemess
chesstre. || Acc goddspellboc ne spekebp nohht | off all patt
operr genge 6778—85. But whatever A. may have meant
by pe doc, it seems pretty certain that it was conceived by
B. to mean the Bible. For this scribe, who had to correct
the MS from a theological point of view (see p. 59), was
apparently anxious to remove such expressions as ascribed
to Holy Writ things which he recognized to be due to other
authorities, although now and then he may have gone too
far in his zeal to find out errors of this kind. Some of the
substituted expressions obviously support this assumption,
e. g. crist iss i pe boc purrh stan || O fele stokess tacnedd
> tesu crist iss wiss purrh stan | O fele bokess etc. (15070
—1), pe boc uss sex3p patt xerrsalem | Bitacnepp gripess
sthhpe > sop lare se33p etc. 18020—1. Note also erased t.
at 1. 565 (edit. note), where a statement is corrected which is
in conflict with the Bible. See p. 67.
Further, we have the corrections halz3 doc > latin boc,
which in my opinion show that the reviser did not look
upon these two designations as synonyms. The former must
be identical with Holy Writ, as it occurs 4 times in unerased
t. in a context which agrees with this theory: 645 (cf. Matth.
XX, 23, 44, XXV, 33), 11689, 14407, 15340. By date boc,
on the contrary, the reviser seems to mean one or more of
Google
47
the Latin commentaries on the Bible. In A.-t. it appears
only once (Pref. 13), referring to an exposition on amminadab
which is taken from Bede (see edit. note on Il. 25, 81, Sar-
razin p. 2). This circumstance combined with the fact that
O. has borrowed copiously from this commentator leads us
to assume that the latter was in the author's mind when
using the expression /atiz boc. Of the I1 instances in B.-t.
(see p. 41), 3 refer to passages which go back to Bede:
10165 (Sarrazin p. 13), 16296 (ib. p. 19), 18086 (Bede
III, 674), 2 partly to the Bible: 1130, 1182 (Acts VIII, 32,
Isaiah LILI, 7), the remaining 6 to expressions which cannot
be identified but do not seem to have been derived from the
Bible.’ The two passages whose original source is undoubt-
edly scriptural need not weigh much as an objection to our
assumption as to the meaning of /atn doc, as the somewhat
different form and application indicate that they have passed
through sorne commentators.”
If it is true that the majority of the instances of Pe doc,
i. e. those which refer to other sources than the Bible, have
been erased for the theological reasons mentioned above, this
explanation cannot apply to the rather many cases (e. g. 111,
7215, 14661 and others) where a confusion of Holy Writ
with other authorities is quite out of the question. Besides,
corrections such as uss se33p pe boc > wrat moyses 14656,
se33p pe boc > se33p goddspell show that here other factors,
e. g. stylistic considerations, have decided the alterations.
But this can only occasionally have been the case, because
the expressions substituted vary but slightly, and for the
most part are of the type Patt witt iu wel (to sope), wiss to
fulle sop (fultzwiss). As we have seen above, many of B.’s
corrections are of a purely formal character, and such con-
siderations seem to have played a part also in some of the
cases noticed here. The correction fe doc uss biddepp >
forr boc 13064 etc. cannot be explained in any other way and
1 The passage 8214—16 is supposed by the edit. (note on 1. 8213) to
have reference to Revelat. XIV, 4, but, as is seen, it disagrees with this
both as to form and application. .
2 cf. OE ledenboca angit (Aelfr. gr.), awriten on léden bécum (Aelfr.
hom.) Bosw.—Tol.
Google
sop boc
48
implies that doc in the sense of the Bible — it refers to 1 Peter
III, 11; see edit. note on |. 13064 — is. preferred to pe doc.
Probably the 11 instances of pe doc altered into sop boc
are to be accounted for in the same way. This designation,
which does not occur in A.-t., I consider to be synonymous
with doc, haltz boc. Seven of the examples have reference
to passages the source of which is Holy Writ: 295, 1064,
3249 (partly acc. to Phil. I, 6) 4770, 4996 (see edit. note on this 1.),
15706 (based on Matth. XII, 50, XXIII, 9, 16295 (partly acc.
to S. John II, 21). The others go back to Bede: 1984 (Sar-
razin p. 7), 3633 (probably the same source), 15660 (Sarra-
zin p. 18), 19941 (ib. p. 20), but these may be looked upon
as inadvertencies on the part of the reviser, as it cannot be
expected that even he was quite infallible in distinguishing
between the statements of the Bible and other authorities.
In this way it would also be possible to explain the instan-
ces of fe doc which cannot have been erased for theological
reasons, probably having been disapproved of because of the
form and therefore avoided. Some of the examples or -se///,
-sellfenn offer an exact parallel in this respect (see p. 1 foll.).
It might be objected that, with such an aim in view, B.
would not have left any examples of pe doc unaltered. It
must then be borne in mind, first, that these are a comparat-
ively small number — 15 in all — secondly, that in 10 of
them pe doc is used in a more limited individualizing sense,
to denote the Old Test., not Holy Writ in general but the
sacred writings of the Jewish people, fe having more or less
the function of a poss. pron.; cf. Azss boc 1071 and pe3z3re
bokess lave 8934 in the same sense. Further, pe boc 5500 is
defined by the prepositional adjunct z godess hus. Of the
remaining four instances two are found in inserted leaves and
may easily have been overlooked.
If we suppose that in A.t. fe doc as a rule means the
Bible, it is seen that, compared with doc, this designation
strongly preponderates. In combination with #a/z3, on the
other hand, the art. is always omitted. As for goddspellboc,
which in itself has a specializing meaning, there was also
fluctuation but, to judge from the examples given by Wein-
mann (p. 17), without any special preference for either form.
Google
49
The same is the case with goddspell' (Weinmann |. c.). Before
12007 dec in the meaning ‘Scripture’ is only found in a Latin
glossary from the 11 c. as a rendering of dib/um (Wright-
Wiilcker p. 360). In Trin. Hom. written about the same time
as the O. we meet with one instance, without any art. (see
p. 46 above). After 1200, when the records become more
frequent, fe doc seems to be the rule. cf. p. 45 above and
Steinhoff § 26. Note also the survival of the omission of
the def. art. in Mod. E. ‘Scripture’, ‘Holy Writ’.
Whether the two cases of pe goddspell (150, 234) erased
are due to a desire on the part of the reviser to avoid the
form with def. art. is questionable. It is true that goddspell
is twice substituted for pe doc (see p. 41), but on the other
hand all the other examples of fe goddspell, which are
rather numerous (Weinmann p. 17), are left uncorrected.
Theological considerations can hardly have played any part,
as both passages refer to well-known facts in the New Testam.
A. often calls John the Baptist ure (pe) laferrd, B. who
appatently thinks that this epithet ought to be reserved for
Christ and God (cf. fe (ure) laferrd crist D. 186, D. 251,
10382 etc., ¢e laferrd godd 727 etc.), has consistently erased
it. Most frequently it is replaced by cristess peww (cf. godess
peoww iohan® 9765): 9599, 9651, 9791, 9849, 9933, 10366,
10384, 10478; sometimes other epithets are used, viz. cristess
bidell 9189, cristess derrlinng* 9219 (cf. edit. note.) and zohan
bapptisste 10115; sometimes there is no corresponding sub-
stitute, the verse having been completed with something else.
That is seen in ll. 707, 9161. In. 9129 press tllke were sannt
zohan the word were is over an illeg. er. Here too /aferrd was
no doubt first written; cf. edit. notes on these ll. It is also
to be noticed that 7 /att tatt cristess peww tohan 10442 is
over er. in h. B.
1 The instances with art. seem to prevail, Weinmann’s material is
not complete.
? Originally the plur. of doc was used as a designation for the Bible,
which was no doubt a translation of db/ia sacra < wa BiBMa. cf. godcunde
bec (Gen.), on Godes bocum (E).), purk halige bec (El.), Grein p. 63.
4 Cf. cristess peoww 11425, 11433, 11441 in A.-t.
‘ This word occurs only in B.-t,; the shortening before 77 is to be
noticed.
4— 22103. S. Holm.
Google
laferrd >
peww.
cherubyn 7
seraphyn.
So
ll. 1048—9 the following passage is erased: 7 seraphyn |
off twex3enn ennglepeode for 7 haffdenn ttt | 0 twe3z3enn stokess
metedd. The same is the case with a corresponding expres-
sion 1. 1056 7 off pa twez3enn ennglepeod, replaced by 7 off
patt an, off cherubyn. These alterations imply that the
erroneous statement made by the first scribe, in connection
with a description of the Tabernacle, that in the Ark there
had been painted pictures both of Cherubim and Seraphim,
has been corrected according to the account in the Bible:
«Duos quoque Cherubim aureos, et productiles facies, ex
utraque parte oraculi. Cherub unus sit in latere uno, et
alter in altero». (Exod. XXV, 18—1Ig). In a parallel passage
later on, however, which is a summary of the exposition
now mentioned, the same:statement recurs, but is. here left
uncorrected: haffdenn liccness metedd | Off cherubyn 7 sera-
phyn | Off twex3enn enngle peode 1695—7. This error on the
part of the author seems to be due to a misunderstanding
of his source, which in spite of Sarrazin’s protestations to
the contrary (Sarrazin p. 26), is probably Aelfric. One of
the latter’s homilies (Dom. IIII. Post Pentecost., Thorpe’s edit.
Pp. 342—4; see edit. note on |. 1050) agrees in several points
with O.’s description: Nu sind da nigon heapas genemuede,
angelt, avrchangelt etc...., cherubin, seraphin'; cf. O.1050—1;
ibid. farther on we find: Seraphim sind gecwedene byrnende,
od de, onelende; ...forpan de nane odre englas ne sind bitweo-
nan him and dam Aelmihtigan Gode, which chiefly is in
accordance with O. 1052—4 7 cherubyn 7 seraphyn||... sinn-
denn drihhtin allre nest,| 7 hexhesst upp inn heoffne. Anyhow
Bede, who according to Sarrazin |. c. is O.’s chief source,
closely follows the Bible on the pvint in question: see Bede
II, De Tabernac. 404. |
Both the passages substituted for the er. are at the bot-
tom of the col., the first «in an infirm h.» (edit. note on 1.
1048); only the second is declared by the edit. to be in
1 In the Bible these names of angels are only mentioned separately.
The first time they occur together is in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch,
chapt. LXI, 10: «And He (the Lord) will call on all the host of the
heavens... and the host of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanimy».
Google
5I
h. B. It goes without saying that they must both be in the
same h., viz. that of B.
ll. 1442—3 Drak harrd 7 hefix pine inoh | purrh fife fife grimme
grimme wundess are in margin for 4 ll. erased A/l/ allse mi-
kell pine drah | Inn all hiss menntsscnesse | All allse mitkell
allse pu || per naz3ledd drexhenn sholldesst (see edit. note).
The edit. does not mention anything as to the originator of
this marg. insert., but in my opinion the handwriting is that
of B. Further it contains an allusion to the five Sacred
Wounds of Christ, the only one in the whole MS. A desire
to make an addition on this point seems to have caused the
erasure. Stylistic considerations such as the repeating of
allse three times may also have played a part.
In 1. 11459 the words crésstnedd follc are in the margin
in h. B. for crzstess hird erased (edit. note on |. 11459). The
two expressions seem to be synonyms, but it is probable
that there was a difference between them in a theological
sense. The latter crzstess hird is also called crisstene follc
13248—9, i. e. ‘Christ’s people’, belonging to Christ and
therefore not susceptible to the Devil’s temptations; cf. the
passage ll. 10394—7: ... off cristess hird, | Off all patt hallzhe
genge || patt rihht shall lefenn uppo crist | 7 hise layhess
haldenn. The latter expression crisstnedd (= christened) follc,
on the contrary, denotes people who may be sinful although
christened. This term is consequently more appropriate in.
a context like this: 7 perpurrh iss patt crisstnedd follc Iss
ed full off swillke | patt follytenn efft te lape gast 11459
—61.1
ll. 3475—7 God prashe to patt werxje | Forr rehht onn
hiss prittende dax3 | pex3 comenn till patt chesstre are in the
margin for the foll. ll. erased: Twellf daxzhess o patt we33e ||
Forr o pe twelifte daz3 ttt wass | patt te33 patt chesstre fun-
denn. It is seen that the scribes differ as to the day when
the Magi came to Bethlehem. A. declares it to be pe twellfte,
1 In crisstene 1. 13249 a letter has been erased after the second -e,
has cristened(d) = crisstnedd first been written and then rejected? Note
also cristnss for cristess 1, 1521 (cf. K. p. 3), which may have been altered
from crisstene. These alterations, however, as well as fcrisjtess hird |.
19036, which is over er., are probably p. m.
Google
wundess.
cristess hird
>crisstnedd
Jolle.
twellfte >
prittende.
three facul-
ties.
concluding
phrases.
52
probably because the day of the Epiphany was generally
so called already at his day (cf. Il. 11102—3 A433 0 pe 3er
uppo patt dayz3 || Jatt twellfte day3 iss nemmnedd), according
to a mode of reckoning which he describes in one of the
inserted leaves (11060—11071). B., on the contrary, considers
it more proper not to exclude the day of Christ’s birth in
the calculation, and therefore he corrects pe twellfte into
prittende. The passages fe prittende da33 |. 6958, uppo prit-
tene daxzess 6965, Binnenn prittene (dayxzess) 6971, which are
all over er., must be due to the same h.; cf. edit. notes on
ll. 3475, 11060, and p. 82.
The word prazhke does not appear elsewhere, the desig-
nations for ‘time’ being zd or “me in A.-t.
It is to be noticed that B.’s spelling prettende 3476, 6958
with only one , which indicates a long 2, differs from A.’s
(prittennde 11062, 11066 insert. A.-t., cf p. 82). cf. Eilers
p. 61. :
At 1. 11507 the following three Il. have been erased:
An sawless mahht iss shed 7 skill || An operr mahht iss
minde || pe pridde mahht iss lufe 7 lusst. Instead three others
are in the margin: Forr sawle onnfop att drikhtin godd |
Inunsthht 7 mindtynesse | 7 wille iss hire pridde mahht. The
context is as follows. After mentioning that the body of
man is composed of four elements (11501—4); for the source
see edit. note) the author states that the soul has three
faculties (#ahhtess), With regard to the designation of these
faculties the author and the reviser differ, as is seen above,
shed 7 skill having been replaced by zznsthht, lufe 7 lusst
by wille. Mindiznesse used for minde seems to be a az.
hey. and may therefore have been coined by the reviser to
suit the metre. In a parallel passage in A.-t. the same three
faculties are termed w2tt 7 wille 7 minde 17572; cf. also 17577.
The reviser was no doubt also anxious to point out that
the soul receives zxnsthht 7 mindi3nesse from God. Probably
in h. B.
ll. 251, 1812, 3490, 16752, 18002 we find marg. inser-
tions in h. B. (cf. edit. notes on Il. 251, 1812, 3490), each
comprising 4 ll. substituted for a corresponding number of
erased ll. The difference in contents between the former
Google
53
and the latter is that fzss poddspell in the erased t. has
been replaced by pise twa goddspelless in the B.-t. To
understand these alterations it is necessary to bear in mind
how O.’s work is planned. The author first gives us the
opening words of the Latin texts’ from the Bible, on which
the homilies are based. Then the homilies follow in the
same order. Each homily consist of the so-called paraphrase,
i, €. a transcription of the biblical t., and the homily itself
or the exposition. After each paraphrase there are as a
rule a few Il. to indicate the end of the text and the begin-
ning of the exposition. These Il. which vary slightly in
the former part of the manuscript, gradually assume a
set form: Her endepp nu piss goddspell puss | 7 uss birrp
itt purrhsekenn | to lokenn whatt itt lerepp uss || Off ure sawle
nede, as it is found in unerased A.-t. Il. 10684, 11399, 12618,
12828, 14078, 15632.2, Sometimes, however, two of the Latin
texts were paraphrased successively but still referred to as
only one in the concluding phrase just mentioned. The para-
phrase of the 1° Latin t., for instance, ends |. 196 but is
immediately followed by that of the 2™4: »Dixit Zacharyas
ad Angelum» etc. This inadvertency on the part of A. has
been removed by B. in his insertions by means of the correction
piss goddspell > pise twa goddspelless. A. has also been
guilty of another inconsistency, sometimes failing to finish the
paraphrase in the above-mentioned way. In such cases the
phrases have been inserted in the margin by B.: 240, 7697,
8391, 8979, 9331 (see edit. notes on these 11.).
The alteration 1. 6514 Nu wile icc shewenn yuiw summ
del | Whatt tiss goddspell 3uw lerepp erased for Her endepp
nu etc. (see edit. note) implies that the concluding phrase
has been corrected so as to get the form given above.
Expressions parallel to these now dealt with are found
in the printed t. at the end of each exposition (homily).
These are devotional phrases varying in length but usually
1 These are not to be confused with the texts that immediately
precede each homily, which are written by C., who, however, has not
always been consistent in this respect; cf. p. 101.
2 It will be remembered that many paraphrases are lacking and
others imperfect. See edit. pp. LXXXIT—LXXXVII.
Google
54
beginning 7 godd allmahhtty yxife (lefe) uss swa or 7 ure
laferrd iesu crist | Uss 3ife, or 7 drihhtin xife uss alle imen.
In unerased A.-t. they appear Il. 7565, 8873, o91I9, 10251,
10642, 11317 (imperfect), 13996, 15532, 16604, 17489, 17881,
19473. In the original A.-t., however, such phrases had been
placed not only at the end of the homily but also elsewhere,
viz.: 1595, 1667, 4535, 4991, 5343, 6289, 7994. These latter
have therefore been erased. On the other hand they were
originally lacking at the end of some homilies, viz. ll. 27271,
3260, 4008, 8343, where they are inserted by B. See edit.?
notes on Il. 2727, 3260.
The marginal insertion ll. 4977—81 (see edit. note on
]. 4977) has a similar purpose. In Il. 4535—4991 the author
comments at large on eight cardinal virtues (hefedd mnahhtess
ehhte) and an equal number of cardinal sins (hefedd sinness
ehhte).2 Each commentary on the first seven virtues finishes
1 For the place of this marg. insert. see p. 72.
2 The edit. has omitted to indicate in his notes that Il. 4o08—g9 are
in the margin in h. B.; ll. 8343—6 the edit. considers to be written p. m.,
which is not very likely, since the parallel passages at Il. 2727, 3260 are
in h. B. The marginal ll. 12562—5, on the contrary, are written p. m.,
which is seen from the e¢o-form feowwtenn. See chapt. on e and eo.
® The source of these expositions has not yet been found out (cf.
Sarrazin p. 10). It may therefore be of some interest to mention that
the roth of the Lamb. Hom. (E. E. T. S. 34 p. 100) named »De
octo uiciis & de duodecim abusiuis huius seculi» deals with the same
theme. This homily, however, is a transliteration (ib. Pref. XI) of one
of Aelfric’s homilies bearing the same title (ib. p. 293). O.’s treat-
ment of the subject is so like that of the mentioned homilies that
the versions of Aelfric and O. either go back to a common source or
the latter is taken directly from the former. In Aelfric (and Lamb.
Hom.) the sins and virtues in question are first named in Latin and
then explained in English. The former are gula, fornicatio, ira, tristitia,
desidia, jactantia, superbia, corresponding to the following virtues: fez2-
perantia, castitas, largitas, patientia, spiritualis letitia, instantia boni
operis, caritas, humilitas. In the O., the sins are taken in the same order
with the exception of the 5th and 6th, which have been transposed: 1.
gluterrnesse 2. gainesse 3. yittsunng 1 xiferrleyyc 4. grimmeleyyc 1 brappe
5. unnlusst 1 forrswundennleyyzc (desidia), 6. erplix kare 7 serrzhe (tristi-
tia) 7. rosing 7 idell yellp 8. modixynesse. Of the virtues only three have
names corresponding to the Latin subst., viz. 1. mett 7 me@p, 2. clennesse
8. meocnesse. — After writing the above I found that the source of the
passage now discussed has been dealt with by W. in a note in an incon-
Google
55
with a statement, worded in a similar way and always be-
ginning with piss mahhte tredepp unnderrfot, that the virtue
in question may overcome a corresponding sin. Thus ll.
4590—5, 4636—41, 4696-4701, 4718—23, 4744--49, 4850—
55, 4900-07. After the exposition on the last virtue,
however, (ending |. 4977) this phrase is lacking in the t. and
therefore the marginal Il. mentioned above are added in
order to make up for this. The reason why A. has omitted
to add the mentioned phrase may be that in Aelfric’s version
(see footnote p. 54) it is not explicitly stated that the 7
and 8" virtues are able to overcome the corresponding sins,
whereas that is the case with regard to the others.
After Il. 66 and 79 there are two erased passages, both
to the effect that man was not strong enough to resist the
Devil because God had created him of dust (eorpe) (see edit.
notes on these ll.). To an orthodox reviser such statements
may have appeared inappropriate as they might imply blame
of God. |
After 1]. 2084 a passage of 10 Il. is erased (see edit. note
on |. 2084), which forms a somewhat free transcription of
Matth. I, 25: «Et non cognoscebat (i. e. Joseph) eam donec
peperit filium suum primogenitum». It is evident that this
was deemed to be too delicate a subject to be commented
upon in a sermon for the people. The er. is probably due
to B. cf. chapt. II.
Group 3.
Here are included a few B.-corrections the object of
which is uncertain.
At Il. 3314—5 the following words are in marg. in h. B.:
bape werenn off || dauipess kin 7 sibbe, standing for a partly
illeg. er., which the edit. interprets as follows: werenn off
hiss kinn ||... becomenn. With regard to the last word a pret.
spicuous place (W.’s edit. p. 638, H.’s edit. p. 582). Here it is shown that
a catalogue of the chief sins is found in the Liber Penitentialis of Arch-
bishop Theodore (668—690) and in several Latin and English ecclesiastical
ordinances of a later date. The passage in Lamb. Hom., however, is not
mentioned.
Google
Erased ¢.
kin
pasche.
56
plur. decomenn from a supposed inf. decuimenn is out of the
question, as the OE prefix Je- appears exclusively in the form
6z- in the O. -de must therefore be the last syllable of a word
preceding comenn, probably szdde (cf. 1. 3315). The following
attempt at a reconstruction of the Il. in question in their
original form may be made: forr patt e33 waerenn off hiss
kinn | 7 off hiss sibbe comenn. The words off dauipess kin
7 sibbe is a literal translation of St. Luke II, 4 ‘de domo et
familia Dauid’. The spelling Azz for usual zn is to be
noticed.
l. 1652 (forr witt 7 skill iss) 1 pe mann erased for...
wel inoh (see edit. note). Cf. the correction dzsne purrh
himmsellf > bisne god inoh \. 852 and... hefiz pine inok in
B.-t. 1. 1442.
ll. 17887—8 are over er.; the handwriting is like that
of B. Besides, the surprising spellings pasche 17887 and
lauerrd 17888 makes us suspect that these two ll. are not
due to A. :
With regard to pasche it is to be noticed that everywhere
else in English A.-t. the spelling passke is found: passke
(1X), -da33 (5X), -messe (3X), -messedaz3 (3X), in all 12
instances (Reichmann p. 46). In B.-t. the word is not recorded.
In Latin A.-t. it is as a rule spelled pascha (4 x), gen. pasche
(2X), the adj. paschali (1X, Reichmann p. 57), only once
paska (Lat. t. XXIV) and pasca (Lat. t. LXXXXVII). In
Lat. C.-t.1 the word occurs once (at |. 15538) in the spelling
pasca. .
Reichmann does not see anything extraordinary in these
different spellings, since, he says, the symbols c, & and ch
are used promiscuously to denote the &-sound, which he
considers to be proved by the fact that even in the same
name & (c) is sometimes found by the side of ck (p. 81).
As instances of such an interchange before a vowel he gives,
except Passke ~ Pasche, only Chana ~ Cana, Zakariass,
-cariass ~ Zacharias. If we distinguish between the forms
occurring in the Engl. t. and those in the Latin t., which
Reichmann has failed to do, we shall find, however, that in
1 In Reichmann’s collection of names, which otherwise is very
carefully made, the names occurring in Lat, C.-t. are not given.
Google
57
the former t. there is no interchange of the kind mentioned,
cana always being written with ¢ (16x), zakarias, -cariass,
sacartye, -karize always with ¢ or & (23 x); Reichm. pp. 65—6,
68). In Lat. A.-t., on the contrary, we find only zacharias
(1X), but chana (1X) by the side of canxanea (Lat. t. CVID),
in Lat. C.-t. gachartas (at |. 109), and chana (at 1. 14000).
Of the names in which only the spelling ck is met with
arrchelaw, -lauss, cherubyn, esechiel, -yel, techonias(s), mache-
ronnte, mellchisedec, michael and rachel occur in Engl. A.-t.,
anttochya, -tam, terycho, and szacheus in Lat. A.-t. In Lat.
C.-t. the form xichodemus is found (at |. 16608), whereas in
Engl. as well as in Lat. A.-t. the same name is always
written with ¢ (Reichmann pp. 21, 57).
Consequently O. has by no means been guilty of the.
inconsistency Reichmann seems to impute to him. It is only
natural that in copying the Bible he followed his original
and wrote ch in the above-mentioned names, in which?! ch
represents the Greek letter y or xy. But in the Engl. t. O.
as a rule used a phonetic spelling even in most names. We
are therefore not justified in drawing any conclusions regard-
ing the phonetic value of ck in names in the Engl. t. from
the occurrence of ch in the Lat. t.2 The only spelling which
may support Reichmann’s supposition is pasche, a noteworthy
exception which is satisfactorily accounted for by the assump-
tion that it is due to another h.
The other spelling /euverrd is as irregular as the former
one, it being a well-known fact that medially between vowels
the voiced labio-dental fricative is denoted by fin vernacular
words (Lambertz § 238). Only in a few scriptural names is
it regularly represented by w, corresponding to the Lat. z
and Greek », viz., in Engl. A.-t.: dauzb(p), -id (22 X, Reich-
mann p. 67), exe (éue) (10 X ib. p. 19), in Lat. A.-t. dauzd
and (montem) oliuetz; initially in the Latin loanwords zzenne
(probably taken from Bede; cf. Reichmann p. 46, footnote*)
and wipera ‘viper’ 9760. There is only one Engl. word in
1 Except in chana, which goes back to Greek Kava. The reverse is
the case in canmanea, Greek Xavavaia. These are probably to be explained
as inverted spellings,
2 cf. also Lambertz § 322, Anm., § 323, Zachrisson, p- 35.
Google
lauerra.
58
which w« appears once for f, viz. serruenn 506 ~ serrfenn
(8 x; Zenke p. 29). In B.-t. too f is met with in vernacular
words: fifepp 7775, laffdt3 9036, hafenn 9058. C. has /uuesst
(edit. note on 1. 4978—81).
The spelling serruenn occurring in insert. A.-t. by the
side of serrfenn (7X) must be an inadvertency due to the
author himself but may be explained by its French deriva-
tion or through association with Lat. servare. But that the
zealous phonetician O. should have written w in the genuine
Engl. word /aferrd which appears hundreds of times in the
O., is very unlikely. cf. Reichmann p. 80, footnote’.
But for the handwriting one might be inclined to ascribe
those ll. to C., whose orthography is very irregular (see above
and p. 102). Besides, this scribe does not seem to have
made any corrections of this kind. As it is, we have to
assume that they are due to B., who seems to have been
more influenced by the learned spelling, although the mater-
ial is too scanty to draw any definite conclusions. !
ll. Identification of B.
It is known that the O. is introduced by a Dedication
which is directed to the author’s brother? wadlerr, who like
himself is an Augustinian canon. Here the author tells us
that the work now concluded was started at the suggestion
of this brother: Jcc hafe don swa summ pu badd| 7 forpedd
te pin wille|Icc hafe wennd inntill ennglissh | Goddspelless
hallyhe lére (D. 11—14). He also tells his brother that he
has been obliged sometimes to make additions of his own:
Ice hafe sett her o piss boc...| All purrh me sellfenn maniy
word | pe rime swa to fillenn (D. 41—44), for which he apo-
logizes a few Il. below: 7 zcc ne mihhte nohht min ferrs| A33
wipp goddspelless wordess || Wel fillenn all 7 all forrpi || Sholide
' The context does not give us any clue, as the ll. in question
occur in a passage the scurce of which is unknown. See edit. p.
LXXXVI.
2 See p. 59 footn.
Google
59
icc well offte nede|| Amang goddspelless wordess don|| Min
word, min ferrs to fillenn (D. 59—64). But this apparently
makes him doubtful as to the doctrinal purity of these addi-
tions, for he then continues: 7 fe (viz. wallterr) biteche icc
off piss boc | Heh wikenn alls itt semepp | All to purrhsekenn
ille an ferrs| 7 to purrhlokenn offte,| patt upponn all piss boc
ne be| Nan word 3@n cristess lare|| Nan word tatt swipe wel
ne be to trowwenn 7 to follyhenn (D. 65—72). We have now
seen that in the O. there actually are a series of corrections
bearing upon the contents as well as the form, in a hand-
writing which differs but slightly from that of A. and which
therefore is no doubt contemporary; we have also seen that
this reviser has been anxious to remove statements which
are or might be taken as being in conflict with the Bible or
other authorities and that his linguistic corrections too are
generally of a normalizing, simplifying, probably artificial,
character, but that the dialect is probably the same. This
being the case, there can be little doubt that B. is identical
with O.’s brother wad/terr, who is asked by the author
himself to revise his work. This assumption also helps to
explain why, with a few exceptions, B. has succeeded in
imitating his complicated orthographical system, which, as
we shall see later on, was not the case with the later scribe
C.. For it is to be expected that wal/terr' was instructed
by his brother on this point, on which the latter seems to
have been particularly keen, to judge from the well-known
passage in his Ded.: 7 whase wilenn shall piss boc| Eft
1 It has been supposed by Henrici (Zeitschrift f. deutsches Altertum
X, neue Folge, p. 232) that the words broperr min || Affterr pe fleashess
kinde are not to be taken literally but in a more or less figurative sense.
His arguments, however, are not convincing. First, the passage from the
Bible on which he bases his assumption, aedpo; év sapzt Philemon 16,
seems to be uncertain as to its meaning. Secondly a similar expression
in the New Test., viz. oxép tv ddehody pou tv su7zevv po» xata adpxa
‘pro fratribus meis qui sunt cognati mei secundum carnem’ Rom. 1X, 3,
has the meaning of ‘belonging to same country’. Therefore it seems to
me more probable that the simple Orm, if he knew the above-mentioned
scriptural expressions, interpreted them literally and employed them in
the same sense. cf. also Bradley, Athen. 1906, I. p. 609, II. p. 73, Wilson,
ibid. II. pp. 43, 104.
Google
60
operr sibe writenn| Himm bidde tcc...|... tatt he loke wel
pati he|| An bocstaff write twix3ess,|| Ex3wher per ttt uppo
piss boc | iss writenn o patt wise (D. 97—106).
' The only writer who has drawn attention to the fact
that O. requested his brother to examine his work, is Ellis
(Pron. Part II. p. 488) in connection with a discussion of the
spelling eo, for which see below.
ll. The spelling e0.
It is a well-known fact that certain words — chiefly
those which in OE had eo — in the former part of the O.
MS appear with the spelling eo by the side of e¢, but that
in the latter part of the MS, or to be more exact, after 1.
13853, not a single co-form is found. They are also lacking
in Dedication (342 ll.) and Preface (106 ll.), the first eo oc-
curring in |. 2 (eorpe) and in some of the inserted leaves.
Further it has been observed by several writers that o has
been erased and then reinserted in later h. Hale, who made
a casual examination of the MS, makes the following state-
ment (Mod. Lang. Not. VIII col. 38): «For in all the cases
I have observed of the spelling eo, an original letter after
the e (presumably 0) has been erased and subsequently an o
inserted in somewhat different ink.» Napier, who apparently
examined large portions of the MS with regard to the oc-
currence of the symbol for g, expresses himself as follows
on the point in question (E. E. T. S. 103 p. 74): «It will
also be noticed that the o in the combination eo has generally
been erased, and that in most cases the o has been again
added by another hand». Biilbring (Die Schreibung co im
O., p. 55) goes through all the. ¢o-forms occurring in the
facsimiles by Napier, Skeat, and White and arrives at a
similar result. Long before, however, the same observations
had been made by the first edit. — which was only to be
expected — who also in a rather important note (1°t ed. p.
LXXVI note 103, 2™ ed. p. LXIV), subsequently noticed
by Ellis (Pron. Part II, p. 488), draws attention to this fact:
Google
61
«A remarkable instance of the preference of e for eo will be
found by the omission, nearly uniform, of o in the latter
part of the MS, in the inserted leaves, and in the Ded. and
Pref, as in the forms /ede, pede, werelld, etc., the o having
been written in the above words and in others in the first
part of the MS, afterwards erased and then rewritten. In
these last-named instances the o has been retained in printing,
in order to preserve the orthography.» The information given
in the last sentence is not correct, for as a matter of fact,
with a few exceptions, o has been printed even in the
numerous cases where it was not rewritten, because traces
of o were left. See White’s Facsim. No. 2 and Biilbring
lc, p. 55. Only in four such instances is e printed. In
two of these, dreri3 4788, wel 19690 (for this cf. edit. gloss.
p. 547) traces of an o are distinctly seen, in the others, sec
9931, wef (subst.) 15400, we can only suppose it to have
first been written.- Otherwise my examination of the MS
only corroborates the previous observations on this point: 0
is mostly, although not quite consistently, erased, less fre-
quently it has-been reinserted, but then always in later h.?
In ll. 1—5700 there are over 150 certain instances of o
having been erased but not put in again. Of o rewritten I
have noted about a hundred instances, the first being corpe
l. 2 and the last Jdeodenn 11627, but there may be more.?
One of the inserted leaves forms a noteworthy exception as
to the mode in which o has been erased, as on the 2™¢ page
(ll. 335—-364) it has not been scratched out but run through
with the pen (17 instances).
Hale (1. c. col. 42—3) tries to account for this confusion
in the use of e and go in the following way: Orm began to
write eo but decided on e about |. 13000. Being a zealous
phonetician he then corrected the instances of co before |.
13000 according to his altered practice. Ded. and Pref. as
well as certain inserted leaves where ¢o is not met with, may
have been written later. Subsequently another scribe, ac-
1 The short time I had at my disposal did not allow me to investi-
gate all examples, there being, roughly speaking, about 1000 eo-forms
in the O.
? cf. Hall’s extract in which no o has been reinserted (II, p. 481).
Google
62
customed to the spelling eo, has looked through the work
and restored o in every case, but did not trouble to add an
o after the ¢ in the later part.
Bilbring seems to agree with Hale on this point (Die
Schreib. eo pp. 78—79). Ellis (I. c. p. 488) who, as far as
I know, is the only writer that assumes the existence of a
second scribe, a reviser, suggests that the deletions of o are
due to the latter, «Orrmin having, on further reflection,
restored his own orthography».
After this brief account of the present state of the
question it may now be asked: Did B. write e or eco? The
question is easily answered. In all corrections and additions
which for several reasons have been ascribed above to B., e
is exclusively used in words where in A.-t. there is.an inter-
change of e and ¢0: 2727—30 flen, ben, 3260—3 erpe, ben,
heffness, heffne 3545, 900, 4009 heffness, herrte 4981, erbe
5203, strenedd 6809, peww (9 inst. see p. 49), den 8345,
erplic 10218, defell 12567; after 1. 13853 ede 15775, prestess
15801, 16008. I therefore look upon it as established that
B. never used the spelling eo and that the occurrence of
this symbol in doubtful insertions is a proof that B. is not
the author. Under such circumstances the simplest way of
accounting for the mysterious use of ¢o and the deletions _
of it would be to assume that A. has written only ll. 1—
13853 but that the rest of the work, including Ded., Preface
and those of the inserted leaves where no ¢o-forms appear,
is due to B., who disapproved of the spelling eo and therefore
erased it in the former part of the MS. This tempting
suggestion must, however, be discarded at once. First, the
same h. is found even after |. 13853 and secondly there are,
with the exception of some of the inserted leaves, certain
corrections in h. B. all through the MS, the first being fz >
pin D. 12 and the last fe boc > sop boc 19941, which is
evidence enough that the first scribe (=the author), after
employing ¢o by the side of e, rejected the former altogether.
It is unquestionable that the Ded. and Pref., which introduce
the work, have been written afterwards. In the former the
author expressly declares that his work is ended (D. 10— 28),
and the latter begins in the following way: pzss boc iss
Google
63
nemmnedd orrmulum | Forrpi patt orrm itt wrohhte (note
the past tense); cf. also P. 51, where he says alls icc hafe
shewedd xuw|O fowwre goddspellbokess. It goes without
saying that the last 1. refers to the following paraphrases of
the Gospels. As to the insert. leaves it is mostly seen from
the context that those occurring before |. 13853, in which
no ¢o-forms are found but which still seem to be written in
h. A., have been added later. Consequently we have to
reckon with three possibilities with regard to the deletions
of o in the combination co: they may be due to A,, to B.,
or to both of them.
We remember that o was as a rule scratched out, but
that a few instances were erased by the pen. These era-
sures were probably made later than the others because they
appear only in one of the inserted leaves, which no doubt
had _ been overlooked at the first revision. These circumstances,
combined with the fact that B. as a rule makes his altera-
tions with the pen, indicate that they are due to him. But
if this supposition is correct, the other deletions of o must
have been made by A. That the author looked through his
work very carefully before handing it over to B. for revision
is indisputable. The inserted leaves and the numerous cases
of superposition of final consonants are evidence enough.
Besides, it is only natural that the methodical O., who at
last decided on ¢ for eo, wished to bring about consistency
on this point and therefore undertook the laborious task of
erasing 0.
As regards the restitutions of the same letter it is im-
possible to assume, with Ellis, that the author himself restored
it. O. was certainly not guilty of such inconsistency. Be-
sides, the different ink indicates a later scribe. As we shall
see later on, there are also other corrections of a similar
kind.
Finally we have to discuss a few instances in which the
combination eo has not been erased but altered into other
letters. These are: Mapeow > Mapbpew 11736, 11764, 11767,
11784 (collat. at these ll.), fpeowess > pewwess 8192 (edit.
note) galileo > galilew 8473 (edit. note). The same correc-
tion is probably aimed at in the somewhat corrupted word
Google
64
w
peowwess 5599, which W. and H. interpret peowwess, K.
peppwess (cf. collat.).
A comparison with the other records of the first word
shows that in non-inserted A.-t. there are only co-forms:
Mapeow 5635, 10649, 11227, Mappeow 11200, 11290, in insert.
A.-t. eforms: Mapew 6978, Mappew 5776, 5815, 7070, 7142;
see Reichmann, p. 30, Effer, p. 195. It is seen that A.
hesitated between the single and double #. Reichmann (p.
89) supposes that this vacillation is due to O.’s uncertainty
in rendering the quantity of the vowel or consonant sound,
as the name has been adopted from French. This explana-
tion, however, is not convincing, since, in vernacular words,
irrespective of the quantity of the vowel, O. as a rule uses
a double cons. medially in an open syllable only when in
OE the doubling was the rule. Exceptions such as wrappenn
(OE wrapian), wipputenn, wippinnenn (see glossary) are
easily explained through association with wrappe and wipbp
(Bjorkman, O.’s Doppelkons. pp. 361 footnote’, 369). It is
more probable that the Latin and Greek spellings Maittheus,
Martdatoc (cf. OE Matthew; Reichmann 1. c.) have caused
the gemination; cf. arriuss 7455, in which 7 was actually
geminated in Latin and OE (Reichmann p. 63, Schulze
Pp. 423).
The alteration feowess > pewwess is more intelligible,
as it is obvious from the records that the latter (with double
zw) was looked upon as being the proper form, there being
only two instances with w (3656, 5511) against 5 with zz
(Effer 1. c. p. 188).
As to the last word there are no less than three forms
in the O.: galile 29 x, galileo' 9 x, galile(o)(wess) § X, i.e.
the form which the correction has resulted in, is the least
frequent (Reichmann pp. 32, 39).
It is difficult to say if these alterations have been made
by A. or B. If they are due to the latter, we should expect,
1 That the eo-forms are in the minority is due to the fact that most
records are found in the later part of the MS. — For the form gadlileo
cf, Bilbring, Bonn. Beitr. XVII, p. 66, Angl. Beibl. 17, p. 135, Reichmann
p. 78.
Google
65
according to the theory propounded above, that o had been
already erased. I am not in a position to say whether that
is the case, but I have specially noted that in Mapeow
10649, 11227 o has been erased and then reinserted and that
in galileo 8847, 8881 and peow/(w/jess 3644, 3656 the same vowel
is nearly erased but not rewritten. But if O. himself made
these erasures, which is very likely, but did not at the same
time double the respective cons., we must assume an in-
consistency on the part of the author in supposing that he
should have made the above-mentioned sporadic corrections.
Even if in the words here under notice o has not been
scratched out by A., they may have been overlooked and
their being corrected in h. B. would consequently be an
exact parallel to the instances in one of the inserted leaves
referred to above. With regard to ga/ilew it is also unlikely
that O. should prefer this form in |. 8473 while elsewhere galile
is mostly used. Finally it may be mentioned that the edit.
is of the opinion that galzleo > -lew is made s. m. (note on
1. 8473).
IV. The inserted leaves.
The results arrived at in the preceding pages will be
taken as a basis for our attempt to find out in what h. the
inserted leaves are written. If B.-corrections or ¢o-forms are
found, these are considered to be safe tests that A. is the
scribe. If, on the other hand, neither of these appear in an
inserted leaf, that is in itself no criterion that it has not been
written by A., because the absence of B.-corrections may be
accidental and the symbol e¢ for ¢o is exclusively met with
even in A.-t. that has been written after |. 13853.
(1) ll. 289—364 form a whole from the point of view of
their contents, being an explanation of the seeming contradic-
tion that Elizabeth was »one of the daughters of Aaron»
(St. Luke I, 5) but at the same time »the kinswoman» of the
Virgin Mary (ib. I, 36), who according to O. belonged to
5 —asstos. S. Holm.
Google
66
the house of David (I. 309), because she was betrothed to
Joseph.
Characteristics: corrections in h. B. wiimmann > wifmann
290, pe boc > sop boc 295, himmsellfenn erased for pohhwheppre
310; numerous ¢o-forms freost 293, Streon 325, deofell 356 etc.;
inconsistencies in the orthography: -wrihkte 289, laferd 308,
339, Rennes 321, lafdtz 334, e33ber 336, zsraele* 294, 208.
For alll 353 see collat. at 1. 353 and for ¢o in Il. 335—364
see p. 61. — Conclusion: the insertion is inh. A. It may have
been added later, but in that case written earlier than the
latter part of the MS, or it may have been placed on a
smaller leaf as a sort of parenthesis; cf. edit. note: «These
lines are on an inserted leaf p. m.» The comparatively nu-
merous inadvertencies in the orthography and the o-erasures
indicate that this insertion has escaped the author’s atten-
tion when he looked through his work.
(2) 467—-622, «on four inserted leaves p. m.» (edit. note
on |. 467), is introduced by a marginal insertion of six ll.,
said to be in h. B. by the edit. (note on |. 461) and deals
with the Old Testament service and King David’s division
of the Israelite priests into 24 parts according to I Chron.
XXIV and Bede’s commentary (Sarrazin p. 3). As far as I
can see, the 3™ leaf has been added later than the others
because it is inserted in the middle of the text of the 24
leaf. Consequently, there were originally 3 leaves contextually
connected, the 1*t comprising ll. 467—536, the 2™¢ Il. 537—
564 and of |. 565 the two first words oun hirdess, which first
1 The Bible tells us only that Joseph (but not Mary) was of the
house of David; St. Matth. I, 1—20, St. Luke I, 27, I], 5; cf. I. 2053—
2074, 3310-3315.
? There are altogether only 3 ¢sracel(es) 294, 298, 842 against 25 forms
with double s and 4 éssraelisshe (Reichmann pp. 26, 64). The zvowel
is therefore no doubt short and the forms ¢s- to be looked upon as scribal
errors. — It is to be noticed that two of Reichmann’s records (p. 26) are
erroneously given, 249 standing for 294 and 13576 for 13756. On p 88
the same author states that ¢ssr@/e 8541 is a scribal error for ssraele.
The MS, however, has zssrva@/e in this place, as also H. and K. read. W.
wrongly reads J/ssraele. 1. 7878, on the contrary, K. reads tssre/e but
even here the MS has ¢ssxa@ele, which may also be seen from Napier’s
Facs.
Google
67
belonged to the following partly illegible er. comprising four
U.:... dwellfe se33p pe boc ||... patt comenn ||... purrh eleazar
| Haffdenn an hird onn hefedd (edit. note on |. 565); after
this er. originally followed the remaining Il. of the 2™4 leaf
587—617, and finally the 4™ leaf comprising only Il. 618—
622. The 3% leaf, which is smaller and written in brownish
ink, begins with 7zkht sextene ...1. 565 and ends with 1. 586.
It has been pointed out above that s¢33h pe doc is an ex-
pression frequently used by A. but erased by B., with a few
exceptions, one of which appears in the 2™¢ leaf (1. 590).
The occurrence of this expression twice, once erased, I con-
sider to be a good proof that the three inserted leaves just
mentioned have been written by A. The er. of the four IL,
on the contrary, and the addition on the 3°4 leaf, which
was a natural consequence of the er., are certainly due to
B., because the additional ll. form a correction of a statement
of A.’s which is obviously in conflict with the Bible. In Il.
481—554 the author tells us how all the priests of Israel
were descended from Aaron’s two sons Eleazar and Ithamar,
and that they had been divided by King David into 24
«courses» (O.: Jotess, Vulg. ‘sortes) representing an equal
number of families (O. Azrdess, Vulg. ‘familiz’), But then
we are told that according to fe doc these 24 families were
divided into two equal parts (fa fowwre 7 twenntis hirdess |
Todeledd haffde rihht o twa 556—7), twelve belonging to
Eleazar and twelve to Ithamar (7 ¢33herr hird 7 e33perr hus |
Todeledd wass pohhwheppre || Onn hirdess twelife sexxp pe
boc 563-4 + er. t.). He has made a mistake with regard to
the figures, however, for I Chron. XXIV, 4 reads: «Inventique
sunt multo plures filii Eleazar in principibus viris, quam filii
Ithamar. Divisit autem eis, hoc est filiis Eleazar principes
per familias sedecim: et filiis Ithamar per familias domos suas
octo». In accordance with this statement the reviser B. has
made an erasure and an addition, putting in 7zhht sextene
and tw233ess fowwre (§65—6) for twellfe. Note also in |. 585
one of B.’s favourite expressions w#tt tu full wel.
It is now obvious why rzhht |. 557 is erased and replaced
by pane (see edit. note on 1. 557), wdeledd haffde rihht o
twa meaning ‘had divided just (exactly) into two’. It must
Google
68
also be pointed out that faze, which consequently has been
put in margin by B., has not the spelling we expect, 2 not
having been doubled [< OE fonne (banne)| in this instance
only against 22 panne, tanne, (469, 1468, 1945, 4062, 4200,
8352, 8401, 8557, 8565, 10876, 11637, 12047, 221, 1086, III0,
2855, 3849, 4044, 10668, 11347, 12045, 16776).! Cf. also Effer
p. 179. It may be added that the spelling whane 11333,
adduced by him (Effer) as an exception, is not authentic,
as the MS has whane = whanne (see collat. at l. 11333). Con-
sequently O. has been quite consistent in this respect.?
Many reasons support the edit.’s assumption that the
marginal ll. which introduce the insertion are also in h. B.
Unfortunately the handwriting is, as far as I am aware, not
conclusive. It is true that in a way these ll. are necessary
to the context, the insertion beginning with the words 7 ke
and fe referring to Zacharias, who is mentioned only a
hundred Il. before (1. 367), but on the other hand we have
seen above that A. often begins a new chapter with And
(see p. 34) and is not very logical from a stylistic point of
view. Cf., for instance, the correction 7 werenn ba > 7 te33
werenn etc. p. 36. Further, their place in the margin show
that they have been added later than the three inserted
leaves, which in their turn must have been written after 1.
13853, probably on the author's revision of his work, because
no ¢o-forms appear. Finally we find in 1. 446 the expression
godd full cweme, which B. ought to be very familiar with,
as he corrects three instances of gode cweme> godd full
cweme (p. 7). For the spelling serruenn for serrfenn 506
see p. 58.
l. 617 the words pehhtennde Jott are in the margin, ac-
cording to edit. (note on |. 617) in h. B. The object of the
alteration cannot be found out as the er. is illegible; cf. z
pehhtennde lott 543 in A.-t.
(3) 1036—45, is on one inserted leaf; no information
given by the edit. in what h. Handwriting not conclusive.
1 pan 5007, 5025 for pann are certainly scribal errors,
? Cf. Bjérkman, Anglia 37, p. 370 footn.: «Die schreibungen faze,
whane (statt panne, whanne) beruhen wohl auf konsonantenkirzung in
unbetonter stellung».
Google
69
It contains an addition to the description of the Tabernacle
in the preceding ll. To the insertion also belong the mar-
ginal ll. 1034--5 7 ter oferr patt arrke wass | An oferrwerre,
wel timmbredd, which have been substituted for an illegible
er. of one |. and immediately precede the insertion, which is
followed by the marginal 1. 1046 7 ter uppo patt oferrwerrc,
apparently added to connect the insertion with the following
non-inserted t. Consequently it is evident a przorz that the
scribe of the marginal ll. is identical with that of the inserted
leaf. The term oferrwerrc occurs only in three other places,
viz. in two marginal insertions which are very like the two
mentioned above and are said by the edit. to be in h. B.:
Uppo patt oferrwerre patt wass | Abufenn parrke timmbredd
1059—60; ... wass an oferrwerrc | Oferr patt arrke timm-
bredd 1692—3, and finally in text over er. 1774—84. That
this oferrwerrc and the expositions made in connection with
it are found exclusively in marg. insertions or in text over
er., is certainly not a mere accident, and it can scarcely be
doubted that they are all due to the same scribe. Now the
edit. (note on |. 1774) declares the er. just alluded to to be
p.m. This is very unlikely, first because it must have been
made later, which is shown by the absence of ¢o-forms,
secondly because the interpretation of the mercy-seat here
given is not taken from Bede, which source is employed in
the surrounding expositions (Sarrazin p. 4). Therefore it
seems very probable that the insertion in question, including
all allusions to the oferrwerrc, is made in h. B. for reasons
which we are not able to find out because of the illegible
erasures. The er. at |. 1034 probably hides something like
the er. at 1. 1692, which is partly legible ... oferr wass a
werre || Wipp halts ... gre33pedd (edit: note on_1. 1692).
(4) 2335—2512 is on three inserted leaves contextually
connected with each other and contains a long exposition
on the Virgin Mary, her chastity and conception, according
to the edit. in h. B. (note on |. 2335). —- Peculiarities: No
eo-forms or safe B.-corrections, always zwzmmann, wimmenn
2350, 2351, 2416, 2430. Alterations: after 1. 2361 and after
hanndfesst \. 2389 are illegible er. (edit. notes on Il. 2361,
2389); after sammnenn 2412 a letter is er. (collat. at this 1.);
Google
7o
@ in onnze@n 2423 altered from an original d (collat. at this 1.);
wtpp childe |. 2446 in margin for an illegible er., according
to edit. (note on |. 2446) in B.; 2469—70.. shollde ben |
Fler borenn o pfatt wise are over er.; after |. 2474 there is
a legible er. comprising 8 '/e 1I., then follow on an er. ll. 2475
—78, and after 1. 2478 there is a legible er. of 7 1/s ll. (see
edit. notes on Il. 2474, 2475). — Inadvertencies in the ortho-
graphy: /ibben 2364, wharrp for warrp 2461. Note also
ma33 2489 in the sense of ‘maid’, the only record in the O.,
the dissyllable 22a33denn being the usual word (cf. Sachse §
11, Anm., Brate, p. 50, Bjorkman, Loanw. p. 64 and foot-
n. 2) and the double gen. form pez3vess in Zell ex3perr
pex3zress herrte 2506.
It is no easy task to decide if we are concerned here
with A.- or B.-text. If the latter, as is assumed by the edit.,
we should have expected forms such as wifmann, wifmenn
as, to judge from his corrections, B. prefers the unassimilated
forms (see p. Ig). Further the edit., as far as I am aware,
contradicts himself by declaring that wzhp chzlde is in h. B.,
a remark which from his point of view seems quite unneces-
sary. He seems to have forgotten or to ignore his former
statement that the whole insertion is due to B. Evidently,
however, the handwriting of those two words in the margin
has struck him as being different from that of the surround-
ing text. But if this observation is correct, it is a proof that
this text is in h. A. Now the absence of the spelling co
and the contents, which form a whole, prove that the in-
sertion has been added later. But from the many altera-
tions it would appear that it has been subjected to a re-
vision, i. e. that of B: Although the handwriting is not
conclusive, [ consider it probable that the text over er. Il.
2469—70 and 2474-8, including the two er., are due to B.
As to the former K. (p. 4) says: «ist mit blasserer tinte auf
rasur geschrieben». With regard to the latter, which is
inserted between two legible er., an attempt will be made
to reconstruct the original text. Characteristics of O. are
his constant repetitions and reiterations, and the fact that
this is the case also here, is in itself an indication that we
are concerned with A.-t. If we compare the two above-
Google
Vt
mentioned er. (edit. note on ll. 2474, 2475)! with a preced-
ing passage in the same insertion, it is seen that, with the
exception of the two last ll. in the second er., they literally
agree with ll. 2367—2375, 2377-- 8, 2381—2384 of the latter.
There are two gaps in the agreement, viz. part of ll. 2375
and 2377 and ll. 2379-80. It is very likely that the same
passages, which together comprise 4 II., have been erased
for Il. 2475—78. If they are put in, the two er. will be
connected as follows: Wipp macche, swa summ i patt ald |
Wass laxhe to ben fesstnedd | 32, patt 3ho mthhte forpenn itt
|| Onn ants kinne wise | 7 wel 3ho pokhte pohh patt xho | [
mazxphad wollde libbenn etc. The two last ll. of the second
er. contextually agree with the t. beginning after the |. over
er. (l. 2479): 7 340 wass weddedd wipp iosep | 7 he wass
warr pa sone | patt 3ho wass waxenn summ del gret. The
chief reason of the mentioned alteration must have been the
unnecessary repetition of what had been said shortly before.
From a stylistic point of view such a revision is a feature
characteristic of B.
It might be objected that the curious form pe337ess 2506
indicates another scribe than the author. It is true that it
is unique, at least as far as the O. is concerned, but on the
other hand similar peculiarities are found in non-insert. t.,
e. g. ho for 3ho, bigunnedd for dbigunnenn. Further pe33ress
seems to have a special function, different from that of He337e,
and is therefore scarcely to be looked upon as a scribal
error. It occurs in the following connection: ¢2// e33perr
pex3ress herrte = ‘to either of their hearts’. In the O. e33err,
owwperr, nowwperr are followed by a gen. or by off + noun,
e. g. nmowwhperr pexzre 12872, 13482, ex3perr pez3re 12874,
here 19, heore owwperr 124, or owwperr (ex3per) off pa
twe33enn 10345, 10586. But as pez37e hkerrte might be any
case, such a partitive gen. plur. would be obscure, especially
if placed after its principal, (cf. jure sawle nede 10687, te337e
bapptisstess fulluhht 18220). In such cases the prep. off +
noun was no doubt employed as a rule instead of the case-
gen. of the noun, but in the present case such a use would
have involved metrical difficulties, and therefore the living
1 For the misreadings in the er. t. see collat. at ll. 2474, 2478.
Google
72
gen. ending -s was added to fe337e. I should therefore think
that e33perr pex3ress herrte is unusual or a poetic license
for e33perr off pex3re herrte. Cf. Sachse § 67 Anm. and
Nachtrag zu § 67 Anm. p. 73.2
In spite of a few peculiarities not met with elsewhere in
the O., this insertion is in all probability written in h. A.
(5) 2685—2726 on one inserted leaf, according to the
edit. in h. B. It is a commentary based upon S. Luke I,
39, pointing out the importance of being good and pious in
this life, as it is too late in the next. With regard to the
place of this insertion in the printed t. the edit. says (note
on |. 2685): «The leaf has a mark of reference, but there
is no corresponding mark on the page of the MS. The lines
are therefore placed here conjecturally.» This statement
causes K. to make the following remark: «Diese bemerkung ist
direkt unrichtig. Der herausgeber hat das iibrigens deutlich
genug geschriebene merkzeichen vor z. 2685 tibersehen, im
iibrigen aber die verse des eingehefteten blattes an die rich-
tige stelle gesetzt». There is certainly a corresponding mark
of reference, but as the insertion is evidently meant to be
the first part of the exposition of the 4™ Latin t., the para-
phrase of which is lacking, not the last part of the preced-
ing one, it should have been placed after the marginal Il.
2727—30. Peculiarities: numerous ¢o-forms; in 3eorrnesse o
is almost erased but not reinserted. Inadvertencies in the
spelling: purh 2687, oper 2707, birp 2723, moten 2725. —
Conclusion: The insertion is written by A.
(6) 4166—4193, on one inserted leaf for 8 erased IL,
according to the edit. in h. B. (see edit. note on 1. 4166).
The cause of the alteration is obvious. The first Il. of the
erased t. run: fe sexe daxhess sette 3uw | Drihhtin till xure
werrkess i be sefennde, pe sunenndaz3 etc. Here the author
is guilty of two mistakes from a theological point of view.
First, is was not the Christians (3uw, 3ure) that the Lord
told to work fot six days of the week but the Jewish people,
secondly Sunday ist not the seventh day. Cf. the beginning
of the substituted version: fe sexe dayzhess sette godd || Htss
folle to pex3re werrkess | pe.sefennde, pe lattste daz3 | He
1 Funke does not mention this instance of gen. part. cf. pp. 69—73.
Google
73
sette pex3m to resste | 7 ttt iss nemmnedd sabbatumm | Amang
zudisskenn lede, which is in accordance with Exod. XX, I1:
«Sex diebus operaberis, et facies omnia epera tua. Septimo
autem die sabbatum Domini Dei tui est.» <A few Il. below
the reviser adds: pe seffnde da33 iss ressteda33 |... Affierr
patt tatt te wuke gap || Amang iudisskenn lede, which is another
refutation of the statement in the erased t. mentioned above.
There are no ¢o-forms, which also shows that the insertion
is made later. Further, this is the only place in the MS
where the Sabbath (saddatumm 4170, 4174) is referred to. —
Conclusion: Although the handwriting is not conclusive, it
would appear that this is written by reviser B.
Immediately before the insertion the following marginal
ll. are erased: 7 godess follc in heoffne shall | A butenn ende
brukenn. Contextually they agree badly with the preceding
passage, which may have been the reason why they have
been erased. The co-form eoffne indicates that they are
written in h. A.
(7) 4554—4571 on one inserted leaf; no information given
by the edit. as to the h. It contains an enumeration of the
eight cardinal sins (Aefedd sinness; cf. p. 54). With regard ©
to the spelling eo the material is too scanty to be conclusive,
as only one form erplz3 4563 can be taken into considera-
tion. Anyhow the usual B.-correction 32/err- > gredt3- 4560
proves thas the insertion is in h. A.
(8) 4774—4783 on one inserted leaf; no information about
the scribe given by the edit. The handwriting seems to
be that of A. It contains a detailed description of the
sickness that befell Job, based on the account of the Bible:
«percussit Iob ulcere pessimo a planta pedis usque ad ver-
ticem eius (Iob II, 7): induta est caro mea putretudine et
sordibus pulveris’; cutis mea aruit, et contracta est» (ib.
VII, 5), and is apparently meant to be-a supplement to the
1cf. I. 4782-3: 7 war 7 wirrsenn toc anan || Ut off hiss lic to
flowenn; wirrsenn seems to go back to OE wyrsm (wyrms) (Lambertz
§ 58 Anm. 2., Sievers, Gr. § 185). Cf. Aelfric (Homil., ed. Thorpe vol. II,
452) and ascrep done wyrms of his lice mid anum croc-scearde, which
is a literal translation of the Latin ‘qui testa saniem radebat’ (Iob. II, 8).
— For war see Bjérkman, Loanw. p. 104.
Google
74
preceding non-inserted passage (4756-72). The absence of
eo-forms (drest, pes, cnes; cf. feos 8079) indicates that it was
added later. <A peculiarity is utenn wibp 4778 meaning
‘outwardly’ instead of the usual webputenn 11958, 15123 etc.
Perhaps the order of the two elements (members) has been
changed for metrical reasons. Probably this insertion is in
h. A. Cf. the similar description of Herod’s disease in non-
inserted A.-t. 8073—8o.
(9) 5776—5861 on one inserted leaf; no information
about the scribe given by the edit. The insertion forms a
substitution for two legible erasures, the 1°* comprising 66
ll., the 2™4 24 (see edit. notes on Il. 5776, 5865). Both the
erased and inserted t. contain an account of the prophetic
vision’ of the four beasts, which are represented as symbol-
izing the four Evangelists. The difference lies in the approp-
riation of the symbols, in the erased t. ‘the lion’ being said
to represent S. Luke and ‘the calf’ S. Mark, whereas the
opposite is the case in the insertion. As is seen from the
table of the different views on this point given by the edit.
(note on Il. 5796—5799), the interpretation in the erased t.
agrees with no other, that of the insertion, on the contrary,
is identical with the explanation given by Jerome. Appar-
ently the version of the erased t. was looked upon as er-
roneous and therefore rejected by the reviser. Another dif-
ference is that in the er. t. the Evangelists are mentioned in
the following order: John, Matthew, Luke, Mark (1° er. ll.
13—22), while in the insertion (Il. 5776—87) the same order
is observed as their respective Gospels have in the Bible.
That may have been a contributory cause of the alteration.
Formally, however, the insertion is, on the whole, only a
transcription of the er. t. Thus, for instance, ll. 5788—91
of the former agree literally with 25—28 of the 1° er., 5796
—s821 with 29—54, 5852—5861 with 55—66; the 2™4 er.,
with the deviations that are a consequence of the different
1 As is pointed out by the edit., this vision is recorded in the Bible
Ezekiel I, Apocal. IV (edit. note on 1. 5796). Cf. also Il. 5796—99:
7 tise fowwre werenn ec || purrh fowwre der bitacnedd || patt godess
peww ezechyel || Sahh purrh gastlike sithhpe. For the different interpret-
ations of the Fathers of the Church see edit. 1. c.
Google
75
interpretation, is rewritten ll. 5826—5849. A few ll. however,
have been added, viz. 5792—95, 5822—25. On the other
hand the first 12 ll. in the er. t. are not found in any form
in the insertion. One of these (I. 9) is erroneous from a
metrical point of view, having 8 stresses instead of 7.
Linguistic differences: In the er. t. there is an interchange
of the spellings ¢ and eo, e.g. ben 2, der, lef 23, deor 30, 37,
45, heoffne 38, leo 2°4 er. ll. 1, 9, preo ib. 15 etc., while in
the insertion only ¢ appears. In the former there are three
instances of loss of final 2: na 1% er. 1. 24, @ ib. ll. 46, 56;
the latter has only 2-forms. In the insertion the 3-syllabic
form J/euness (5827), which is adopted from French (Kluge,
Eng. Stud. 22 p. 180, Lambertz § 144), appears by the side of
the dissyllable /eness 5838 and /e(nom.) 5834. The er. t. has
only deo, leoness (2™4 er. 1, 13). The form deuness as well as
the spelling ez is not met with elsewhere in the O. Some
of the names are spelled differently: the inserted t. having
lucas 5783, lucam 5853, Mappew 5776, 5815, ezechyel 5798
by the side of ezechiel 5800, which names appear in the er.
t. as Jucass 1* er. 1. 18, ucamm 2™% er. 1. 4, Mapeow 3* er.
ll. 14, 48, esechiel 1% er. ll: 31, 33. Finally Her habbe icc
nemmnedd 1** er. 25 as opposed to Her hafe i nemmnedd
insert. t. 5788 is to be noticed.
The absence of eo-forms proves that the insertion in
question has been added later. The regular use of -forms
as opposed to the three forms without z in the correspond-
ing er. t. points to B., as this scribe has added x in most
of the instances where there is loss of final z in A.t. It
may be supposed, however, that, just as in the case of ¢ and
eo, A. decided to use only forms with 2 later on and there-
fore employed only z-forms in the text that was afterwards
inserted. But this does not seem to be the case. The last
n-less form occurs in 1. 19853, and in the 11™ insertion
(6978—7464), which must have been written later (no eo), we
meet with 3 forms without x (wa 7367, pz 7378, A 7382),
two of which have been corrected in h. B. Still, that is no
criterion that the insertion under discussion is not written in
h. A., since this scribe only occasionally used -less forms
a, na instead of an, nan (see p. 23). |
Google
76
Nor is the only occurrence here of the French loanword
leuness a proof that we are dealing with B.-t. (cf. pez3ress
in the 4™ insertion) but it is noteworthy, especially as the
combination e/z is not represented in any other word.!
The spelling -as as opposed to -ass in the er. t. is in
accordance with the ordinary. use in the O. Of all the names
with this ending there are altogether only 6 forms in -ass?:
helyass 10321, zechontass 11301, kayfass 9487, Messyass (in-
sert. A.-t.) 7238, zacariass 691, -karyass (insert. A.-t.) 540
against 41 forms in -as: helyas 20X, herodias -yas 2X,
techonias -yas 2X, kayphas 1 X, lucas 4X, lystas 1X,
Messyas 1X, satamas 1X, ysayas \ X, sacarias, -yas,- ka-
ryas 3X. In B.-t. there is only one instance: sacaryas 464.
A. seems to have hesitated to apply his orthographical
system to names of this type. They may also reflect an
uncertainty on his part as to the quantity of the vowel; cf.
Reichmann § 36.°
In names with the Latin endings -zs (nom.), -um (acc.)
the final cons. is as a rule doubled in English A.-t.: arrche-
lauss 4X, arriuss 1 X, augus(s)tuss 2X, lagaruss 1 X, ty-
bertuss, t- 2X, nagarenuss 1X}; once even in Latin A.-t.:
petruss (CCXXXIII), The name zesus/s) fluctuates, there being
3 forms in -zss, 4 in -ws. .In B.-t. only forms with double s
are found: zesuss 11319, 12566. Forms in -um(m) are rare.
1 The phonetic value of the second vowel must be # (00), Chaucer
having leoun (N6jd, p. 79). This fact makes Reichmann’s assumption
(p. 46) of a prounciation #/ in sauz/ questionable, if not unlikely. In this
word as well as in other words of the same type, a7rchelauss, arriuss,
cafarrnaum, u is probably due to influence from the Latin orthography
and pronounced as w# in butt, summ etc. Whether y, occurring only in
scriptural names, represents an #-sound or is only another graphic sign
for z, is uncertain (Reichmann § 22). The latter alternative is what we
should expect, as OE and OScand. y regularly appears as 7 in O,’s
dialect (Lambertz §§ 62, 66, 147, 155).
? These statistics and others concerning proper names in the O. are
based on Reichmann's collections, which with a few exceptions are
reliable.
$ It may be pointed out that in Greek, consequently also in Latin,
-as was long in Aovxdg and Zazavas but short in the other names, This
may have caused the confusion of -as and -ass in the O.
Google
77
In A.-t. zesumm 3X, tesum 1 X,; but always cafarrnaum!'
(4 <) and orrmulum (1 X). In B.-t.: propitiatoriumm 1036,
sabbatumm 4170, 4174.
Of forms in -am(m) (acc.) there no instances in B.-t.; in
A.-t. only -amm: Messyamm 2 X, helyamm 2 <; cf., however,
adam, balaam, abraham (habr.), kam (corresponding to Greek
Op). |
-zel by the side of -ye/ in egechzel is not a characteristic,
as z alternates with y in many scriptural names, for which
see Reichmann § 22. Consequently no conclusion as to the
writer of the insertion can be drawn from the different spell-
ing of the names now discussed. Nor does the last difference
between the two t., hafe 7 (insert.t.) ~ habdbe icc, give us any
clue, the material in B.-t. being too scanty. In the O. there
are 44 habbe, 35 hafe and 1 nafe (Zenke p. 25). Of these
one Aafe occurs in B.-t. 4187; kabde 8334, which is over er.
(edit. note on 1. 8334), may be in h. B. A. employs both
forms. But it is interesting to observe that whereas in the
non-insert. t. of the homilies 4adédée strongly preponderates,
hafe is preferred in Ded. and Pref., where 18 4afe but not
one habée appear.* In the insert. leaves there are only two
instances, but always Aafe: 2438, 2441. Consequently, if
Ded. and Pref. are written by A., which can scarcely be
doubted, the occurrence of #afe in an inserted leaf added
later, is by no means conclusive as to the scribe.
At the end of the insertion the following legible er. is
found Forr kallf wass alls uss se33p fe (the word doc does
mot occur in the er., as is stated in edit. note on 1. 5861).
The. reason why these words have first been written and
then erased is evident: The author of the insertion has
forgotten his original intention of keeping ll. 5862—5 of the
non-inserted t., the first 1. of which was first written Forr
kallf wass alls uss se33p pe boc (but in which eadls uss se33p
pe oc has as usual been erased and replaced by wss
1 cf. Greek Iysots, acc. -odv, Kagapvaody or Kanepvaody.
2 A parallel to this is found in the use of the inf. habbenn, hafenn.
Of the former there are 37 instances, of the latter only 3 (Zenke p. 25),
two of which appear in D. 143, D. 151, the third in 11443. The first
instance of hadbenn is met with in 1. 123.
Google
78
to fulle sop in bh. B.); then noticing his mistake he erased the
words in the inserted t. which were unnecessary.
The occurrence of an expression which is so character-
istic of A. but which was almost consistently erased by B.
(see pp. 40—1) is in my opinion a proof that, in spite of the
theological correction, the z-forms, and the form /euness, A.
has written this insertion. In a note on Il. 5972—3 the edit.
seems to express the same opinion: «In the MS the exposi-
tion of the symbolical beasts and the comment on them
follow the order of the erased text. The capital letters A,
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, are placed apparently by the first
hand, to denote the order in which the exposition corres-
ponds with the inserted text.» Finally we have to consider
the handwriting, which in my opinion is that of A.
(10) 5912—71 on two inserted leaves; no information
given by the edit. as to the scribe; here the same idea is
adopted as in the Preface 1— 81, Christ being symbolized
by amminadab (-dib) (see edit. notes on P. § and 25), al-
though partly with another application. — Peculiarities: no
eo-forms (cf. peowwtenn 5903 and /eo 5978); 1. 5916 .. att
king bt nime wass is substituted for alls uss se33p be boc
in h. B. (edit. note on |. 5916); -ze 1. $941 and Il. 5942—3
are in the margin, prob. in the same h. as the insertion
(edit. note on 1. 5941); cf. Il. 11330—1; 1. 5950 fe swallt for
he swallt (edit. note on |. 5950); 1. 5955 (o)un erpe over er.
in a handwriting like that of B. (cf. collat. and I. §979 where
_ the same words are over er.). — Conclusion: written in h. A.
(11) 6978—7464 on seven inserted leaves; no information
given by the edit. as to the scribe. It is the longest in-
sertion in all the MS and is an exposition on S. Matthew
IJ, 1—17.
Peculiarities: no ¢o-forms; B.-corrections: alls uss se33p
pe boc > weiss to fulle sop 6988, swa summ pe boc uss sex3p
> patt witt tu wel forr sop 7044, alls uss se3x3p fe boc >
patt witt tu full wel 7082, swa summ pe boc uss se33p > patt
wett tu fuliywiss 7214, swa summ pe boc uss kibepp > patt
witt tu wel to sobe 7321 (see collat. on these ll.), zwzmmnenn
> wifmenn 7076, crist himmsellfenn > crist himmsellf puss
7403 (see edit. notes); fz > pz 7378, probably also na >
Google
79
nan 7367 (see collat.). The following alterations are made in
a handwriting like that of B.: ll. 7265—6: za in kinn over
er., 7 king off interlined (see edit. notes on these II.); 1. 7336
pe sterrne comm rthht tll over er. (cf. edit. note); ... puss
brihht 7344 over er. (see collat.). After 1. 7169 there is a
legible er. (see edit. note on |. 7169) of six ll., which seems
to be in the same h. as the insertion. If they are put in
after 1. 7169 in the t., it will be seen that they can scarcely
be connected with the preceding and the following text so
as to give any sense. Further it is evident that ll. 7172—3,
7178 —82, although somewhat different in form, are meant
to replace the er. passage. These circumstances indicate
that these ll. were erased immediately after being written
down, because they had come in wrongly.
In 1. 7268 the word kalldisskenn is altered from an
original caé/- (edit. note on |. 7268). This implies that the
corrector considered & to be the proper symbol in this word.
In the O., as in most ME MSS, & is regularly employed
before front vowels (@, ¢, 7), ¢ remains before back vowels
(o, u)?. Before @ there is fluctuation (Lambertz § 271). The
distribution of the two symbols before this letter is as
follows.
& alone is found in kafe 1 x, kaggerrleyzc 2 X, (bi)kahht
1X, kald 1X, kanunnkess 1X, kanndell- 1X, kaserr-(14X,
g of which are in h. B. cf. p. 31); Aarrte 6X, kalldea(-)
4X, kalldewe 1x, kalldisske(nn) 8X, kam 1X, kayphas
3x. — Not initially: skarn 2x, skarnedd 1X, skapesst,
skapedd 1X, skafbeles 2X, unnskapefull 2X.
Only c: camb 1; cafarrnaum 5 X,cana 16X, caym 3X.
— Not initially: acéb 19993, /ucas(s), -am(m) 8 X (two of which
in B.-t., two in erased A.-t.), scaldess 1 X.
Both & and ¢ are met with in: kall/ffess) 6X, (of which
I in insert. t. and 2 in erased t.): cal/f(ess) 3 X (of which I
in insert. t.), Zann(st) 3X, cann(st) 10 X, kare l X, care ix,
karitep(ess) §X, cariteh 1X, kasstell(tun) 3X, casstell(tun)
2x; kalldefokwisshe 2X, call-IX. — Not initially: zakaryas,
-karize 3X (2 of which in insert. A.-t.), -cartas(s), -caryas,
-carize(ss) 19 X (of which 1 in B.-t.).
1 1 have noticed two exceptions disskopess 9184, bisskop 9483.
Google
80
It is seen that & prevails in all words except 3 (cazn/(st),
cana, zacaryas, -carize). Even in Latin A.-t. & has slipped
in: paska XXIV. The correction call- > kall- may therefore
be in h. A.
Other alterations in the insertion, for which see edit. vol.
II, pp. 377—8 and collat. at Il. 7070—7448, are no doubt
made by the author of the insertion, which must be A.
(12) 7471—8o is in h. C.; see p. IOI.
(13) 7775—83 «on a small slip of parchment inserted
between the columns above mentioned (176, 177), but without
any mark of reference to their place in the MS» (edit. note
on |. 7774). The edit. therefore supposes this insertion to
be a fragment of a lost commentary, there being traces of a
leaf which has been cut away (edit. note |. c.). From the
point of view of its contents it is related to the passage
7939—7970, but if it was meant as a supplement to this
exposition, we should have expected it to be inserted between
the columns 179 and 180. No information given by the
edit. as to the scribe. Peculiarities: no eo-forms: werrkess
7778, 7780, depe 7779, btirewenn 7783 (cf. -reowenn 7783);
fiessh 7775 for ordinary flesh, The handwriting is in my
opinion that of B.
The assumption that we are here dealing with B.-t. is
supported by the occurrence of the extraordinary spelling
fiessh, this word always being spelled fi@shk elsewhere in the
MS (according to the edit.’s glossary over 60 instances of
flesh, -liu, -like). It seems incredible that the methodical
speller O. should have intentionally been guilty of such an
inconsistency!; cf., on the contrary, other similar inadver-
tencies in B.-t.: prettende (p. 52), kin (p. 56), pane (p. 68),
watt (p. 88).
The spelling flessh reflects a pronunciation with short -¢
by the side of that with a long vowel as early as in O.’s
1 Cf., however, in A.t. perto, ter- (8X according to gloss.) by the
side of perrfo 11268 and in er. t. in edit. note on 1. 5865 1. 19, perwipp,
ter- (9X according to gloss.) by the side of perrwipp 11707. These
spellings probably indicate the beginning of a shortening before the
consonant groups rt, rw, although they are no doubt unintentional on
the part of the author.
Google
81
time. It will also be remembered that shortening has taken
place in O.'s dialect before sk in wessh 1732, wesshenn 15128
(Morsbach. Gr. § 63, Zenke § 16). A century later we find
the short vowel in /éesh in Curs. M. (fless: gress; Strand-
berg § 50) and Rob. Mann. (fresshe: flesshe; Boerner, p. 64).
(14) 8241—8326, on one inserted leaf (edit. note on 1.
8241), is only apparently an insertion, as it is a direct con-
tinuation of the preceding passage, the first 1. purrh rome
burryhess kaserrking being dependant on flewmd 7 drifenn
ut 1, 8239. It may also be noticed that the two last Il. form
only part of a beginning sentence which ends |. 8330. Con-
sequently the smaller leaf, on which the above-mentioned ll.
have been written, must have been inserted, at the latest,
immediately after ]. 8240 was finished.
(15) 9035-62, on one inserted leaf; no information given
by the edit. about the scribe. It is an addition to a com-
mentary, partly lost, on S. Luke IJ, 8. — Characteristics: no
eo-forms: /ede 9044, lef 9057; no loss of final 2: nan ping
9041, tn faderr 9057; there are a few erasures: |. 9047 cr
(probably meant to be crvis¢) erased after patt (edit. note on
1. 9047), 1. 9059 wollde over er.; a word of two letters, per-
haps fz (cf. edit. note), erased after /etenn; |. 9061 whatt
over er. (see collat. on these ll.). The handwriting is in my
opinion that of B. With regard to 1]. 9057... tcc 7 tn faderr
cf. 1. 8944, where the same passage from the Bible is quoted,
n
lcc 7 t (corrected into # by B.) faderr in non-insert. t. Finally
it may be pointed out that wzss fo sope occurring inl. 9038
is an expression often put in by B. for se33p fe doc; cf. p.
41. Conclusion: The insertion is in h. B.
(16) 10291—10300 <on an inserted leaf with a mark of
reference to their place in a leaf of the MS which contained
Coll. 257—260, but is now lost» (edit. note on |. 10291).
The insertion forms a whole from the point of. view of its
contents and contains an explanation of the words ‘Propheta,
es tu?’ (St. John I, 21). No eo-forms: helysezwv 10296, 10300,
(cf. helyseow 10334), den 10299. The handwriting is not con-
clusive. The scribe may be B.
(17) 11060—11071, on one inserted leaf, supposed to be
6 —e20s. S. Holm.
Google
82
in h. B. by the edit. (edit. note on |. 11060); here we are
informed that the day of the Epiphany is called ‘Twelfth
Day’ but is actually ‘the thirteenth day’. As has been pointed
out above (p. 51), we have met with 4 instances of pe
twellfte (twellfe) in the sense mentioned, all of which have
been altered to prittende (prittene) in h. B. This leads the
edit. to the assumption that the ll. inserted here «were added
to account for the alterations there made» (edit. note 1. c.).
This theory appears very plausible, but must be discarded
for linguistic reasons. In 1. 11066 there is an co-form beop
which, in my opinion, is sufficient evidence that the insertion
in question is written by A. Further, the different spelling
of prittennde (see p. 52) tells against the edit.’s assumption.
Besides, the statement made in this insertion need not be in
conflict with A.’s use of twellfe, twellfte in the above-men-
tioned places. It may, on the contrary, be taken as an
explanation why, contrary to his knowledge, he accepted the
general mode of denomination on this point. Finally we
cannot escape recognizing O. from the naive and at the same
time puzzling arguments in ll. such as these: swa summ 3e
nemmnenn yure 3er | Twellf monepp, 7 tohhwheppre | ze muxhenn
uppo xure yer prittene monepp findenn (11068—70).
(18) 17206—17239 «on an inserted leaf between Coll.
380 and 381, with a reference to their place in Col. 379»
(edit. note on 1. 17206); deals with the effects of baptismal
water on the body and mind of man. As this insertion
occurs after 1]. 13853, the absence of ¢o-forms is no criterion
that it has been added later, but the contents, which may
be taken as a whole, and the reference-mark mentioned by
the edit. show that this is the case. The expression s¢33p
pe boc 17220 (see p. 41) indicates that it is A.-t.
Summary.
In the O. there are altogether 18 insertions on 29 leaves.
Of these the 14" may be eliminated as not being an inser-
tion in the strict sense of the word. Of the others ten are
in h. A., viz. I, 4—5, 7, 8 (prob.), g—11, 17, 18, four in
Google
83
h. B., viz. 3, 6, 13, 15, and one inh. C., viz. 12. Of the
2™4 insertion Il. 467—565, 587—622 are in h. A. but Il. 56s
—586. in h. B. The 16" is uncertain as to its scribe.
V. Corrections in h. A.
1. Text over erasure,
It is generally held that the O. MS is an autograph, a
view whose correctness is only confirmed by the present
investigation. The fact that, according to the entreaty made
by the author in the Ded., the MS is revised chiefly from a
theological point of view, ought to be a sufficient proof that
we have the author's own MS. The many erasures have
been looked upon as further evidence (cf. edit. p. LXXVI).
Apart from the deletions of 9 in the combination ¢o, the
number of which must be estimated at several hundred, and
which we have every reason to ascribe to A., there are over
200 shorter or longer passages which appear over er. We
have seen above that only a small number of these (about
15) are due to B., and that, with regard to a few others, it
is doubtful if they are p. m. or s. m. Consequently the
majority of them are made by the author himself, from which
we may draw the conclusion that A.,-contrary to B., did
not as a rule erase with the pen but with the knife.
2. Erased text.
A few passages and separate words, however, which
have been erased in the former way but without any substi-
tution, are of such a character that they must have been
Google
84
made by A. Among these we note in the first place the er.
after 1. 7169, which has been discussed in connection with
the inserted leaves (p. 79). The others are as follows:
After D. 170 al. is erased, «which is illegible, but neither
sense nor rhythm is disturbed» (edit. note on this 1.). We
may therefore be justified in concluding that it was erased
immediately after it had been written.
In P. 66 the particle de is erased after salemann (see
collat. at this 1.). It may be a miswriting for d2z- in the
following word Jdztacnedd or rather reflect an intention on
the part of the author to write dex tacnedd — tacnenn and
bitacnenn are both often used indiscriminately — which on
consideration he found to be impossible, this auxiliary having
already been written in the preceding 1.
In |. 498 the word first is erased after serrfenn (edit.
note on the same |.). It is an anticipation of firrst 1. 499.
Cf. Skeat, Twelve Facs. p. 10: «A common source of error
is to write down a letter too soon».
In |. 7176, 7 tatt iss ex3perr himm 7 hemm, wiss is
erased after zss. The word wzss is frequently used by O.,
and like the monosyllables a//, full, wel, ha, 233, puss it often
seems to have been put in to fill up the verse (cf. Ded.
41—4), e. g. zs wiss P. 59, amm wiss 4970, stnndenn wiss
7410, arrt wiss 11339, 11355, 11359 etc. Here it was ap-
parently erased because from a metrical point of view it
did not suit what followed.
In 1. 8501 eft onn- is over er. and zm is erased after
efft (edit. note). The next |. has Juntidl (hiss axhenn birde) ;
consequently an anticipation analogous to frrs¢ mentioned
above.
In the septenary 8785—6 Forr patt he 3ifepp her hiss
peoww | Hiss frofre o seofenn wise, hell is erased after hiss
in the first half-verse (edit. note on this |.). This suggests
that the author first intended to express himself thus: Forr
patt he (=haltz gast; cf. 1. 8783) 32fepph her hiss hellp(e).
The last word was inappropriate here as the metre requires
a monosyllable.
In 1. 9077 pu best forrworrpenn att tedom, two letters are
erased after forr-, according to the edit. (note on this 1.) de.
Google
85
If this interpretation of the er. is correct, I am at a loss to
account for this miswriting. The comparatively rare oc-
currence of the symbol d, however, for p (see edit. p. LX XX)
gives us reason to suspect that instead of de de was first
written. In that case the author's original idea may have
been to write forrdemedd, which was then replaced by the
synonym forrworrpenn because of the cognate subst. dom.
The ME compound fordemen (< OE fordeman) is, however,
not recorded in the O.
In Il. 9797—8 Ne sinndenn 3e nohht tahhte yet | Hu
mannkinn maz3 forrbuxhenn, to is erased before hu. The
use of ¢o + inf. after cahhie in |. g265—6 wha tahhte yuw | To
Heon etc., which well-known quotation (S. Luke III, 7) is
commented upon in the above-mentioned septenary, has no
doubt led the author to the miswriting in question.
In 1. 13245 purrh halt gastess sallfe, frofre is erased
after gastess (edit. note). purrh haltz gastess frofre is a
scriptural expression corresponding to the Latin ‘consolatione
sancti Spiritus’ Acts IX, 31, which seems to have been very
familiar to O., occurring 5627, 8758, 8766. Cf. also purrh
godess gastess frofre 18439, Hiss hallshe gastess frofre 13253,
patt halizhe Jrofre gast 10986, 11001. It is therefore not
surprising that fvofre has slipped in unintentionally in connec-
tion with the gen. kala gastess.
In ll. 11084, 18731, 19761 the expression ure ee
crist is found. The word zesu is, however, erased before
crist (see edit. notes and collat. at |. 19761). It is obvious
that the usual combination zesu crist, of which there are more
than 200 cases in the O. (Reichmann pp. 33—4), has led the
author to write the name in full. It was then erased for
metrical reasons.
3. Marginal insertions.
Mistakes of the opposite kind, i. e. omissions of words
and passages in the text which then had to be supplied in
the margin, are also often found. It is therefore natural that
Google
86
the majority of the marginal insertions which have not been
substituted for corresponding er. in the text should be due
to the author. These may be divided into four groups:
(1) letters and endings like -v-, -t, -enn, -ne, -ess, which
are placed in the margin in the following places: 7234, 8019,
8693, [13244]’, 14435, 15739, 18509, 19370.
(2) single words such as 70, nede, filledd, rarely two
words (3 instances), and once three words: 487, 5010, 7IOI,
7448, 8012, 8266, 11296, 12875, 12934, 13089, 13322, 14036,
14557, 14705, 14714, 14773, 14816, 15752, 15933, 16103,
16153, 16178, 16657, 17940 (mann patt), 17975, 18367, 18507,
18655, 19268, 19459, 19539.
(3) half-verses: 2680, 5053, 9268, 9934, 10443, 12319,
18637, 18686, 19382.
(4) whole septenaries, which will be further discussed
below. | | |
The marginal insertions of the first group are ordinary
scribal errors, which is also the case with the majority of
those belonging to the second group. A_ few of the latter,
however, viz. twa 487, rihht 7448, hemm 14557, all 15933,
' per 15752, gast 7 16657, tatt frofre gast 18655 seem to have
been added for metrical purposes only, as the context in
which they occur would be intelligible without them. It is
probable that the most conspicuous errors were removed by
the author gradually, as his work proceeded. Others, not
so easily discovered, e. g. those caused by a miscalculation
of the proper number of metrical syllables, may have been
corrected later. As has already been hinted, it is indicated
by several factors, i. e. some of the inserted leaves, super-
positions of double consonants, deletions of the combination
eo, that the author subjected his work to a careful revision
after it was finished. Although theoretically conceivable, it
is therefore not very likely that deledd 8266, left out in the
text and then written above the |., was added in h. B., as
is assumed by K. (p. 9). As it is necessary both for the
sense and the rhythm, it can scarcely have escaped the
author's attention. .
1 Whether / in mohht 13244 is added p. m. or s. m. is questionable
(cf. edit. note on |. 13244).
Google
87
As to the third group of insertions, two of them (9934,
10443), in which ¢o-forms are found, must have been added
by A. on his first revision. The same is apparently the
case with patt godess sune, godess word 18637, which forms
part of a quotation from the Bible (S. John I, 1), without
which the context would be perfectly unintelligible.
l. 5053 is dealt with on p. 103 below.
The remaining six half-verses differ from those just
mentioned in so far as they are not necessary for the sense,
and may therefore have been put in later to serve metrical
purposes only. As is known, the metre used by O. is the
septenary, which consists of two half-verses containing alter-
nately 8 and 7 syllables. Consequently it is possible that by
mistake the author occasionally wrote two half-verses suc-
cessively which had an equal number of syllables. The only
way to correct a metrical inadvertency of this kind without
altering the preceding passage, was to add another half-
verse, That this actually has been the case, is seen from
Il. such as 9268, 19382, which are additions made by the
author chiss rime swa to fillenn», whereas the surrounding
ll. are literal translations of S. Luke III, 7—8 and S. John
Ill, 28.
It remains to discuss the 4" group of insertions, 8
instances of which are found.
I. 1714—5§ All rss icc sex3de yuw lttler|| Her uferr
mar a litell, which are placed at the bottom of the col.
(edit. note), seem to have been added by the author on his
second revision in order to make the text more easily in-
telligible. The passage which these ll. are intended to
supplement consists of a series of ¢#at-clauses all depending
on 7 ec ¢ se33de suw littler| Biforenn o piss lare 1686—7.
As a hearer or a reader might easily forget the grammatical
context through the many intervening clauses, it was deemed
necessary to add another principal clause.
The passage ll. 2837—8 patt wass swa summ 3ho se33de
puss || Wipp opennlike (A.-t.) speche forms the principal clause
of a complex sentence beginning with 7 faz etc. |. 2833.
That the insertion is p. m. is also proved by the B.-correc-
tion opennlike > all full openn 2838.
Google
88
Il. 5942—3 7 tatt he sippenn affterr patt| Held fasste t
wilde wesste in inserted A.-t., are not necessary to the con-
text but form an addition from the point of view of the
contents. Cf. 11330—1 Heold crist hiss fasste pere || Fow-
werrtt,, dazhess a33 onnan. The handwriting indicates the
scribe of the inserted t.
The septenary 9529—30 purrh fulluhht 7 purrh halts
gast| Off alle pex3re sinness differs from the others in so
far as the first two words of the next 1. 7 forry are also in
the same marginal insertion. Whether before this addition
ll. 9528 and 9531 were contextually connected, cannot be
ascertained because the former 1|., which is over er. (see
edit. note), must have been differently worded. Either two
metrical syllables were left out by mistake in 1. 9531, or
what is more probable, 1. 9528 now covers a space in the
MS which was originally taken up by a half-verse correspond-
ing to 7 syllables + 2 syllables belonging to |. 9531. The
latter alternative would imply that the er. and the marg.
insert. were made simultaneously by the same scribe, i. e. A.
With regard to its contents the addition is a somewhat free
transcription of S. John I, 33: ‘hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu
sancto’. Cf. also Matth. III, 11, Mark. I, 8, Luke III, 17.
ll. 16601—3 are in the margin for a legible er. compris-
ing one |. (edit. note). It is seen at once from the typical
B.-correction himmsellfenn > himmsellf watt \. 16602 (see pp.
I foll.) that the insertion is p. m. The septenary beginning
1. 16600 originally ran: 7 wat all whatt iss t pe mann|| Bett
tann be mann himmsellfenn. Then the second half-verse was
erased by the author and replaced by z pe manness herrte
| Bett tann pe mann himmsellfenn whatt | Iss inn hiss axhenn
herrte. Finally -enn in himmsellfenn was erased and watt
put in instead by B.
It is to be noticed that this is the only case of waét,
3°4 pers. sg. of witenn, being spelled with double ¢ the author
himself always writing wat, mat (14 instances according to
Zenke p. 39). Cf. Lambertz § 16 Anm. I.
Finally the following collection of slighter accidental
miswritings which have been corrected may be noted:
pa> patt 3291, wallde> walde 3909, nede > mede 6225,
Google
89
mahhtess > mahhte 4571, lif > wif 7659, rihhiwiss > -wis 8254,
huss > hus 15230, palate > pilate 8292, sannderrmann > -menn
10304, gluterrnesses > gluterrnesse 11636, tohht > tohh 13482,
patt > pa 15020, bitacnadd > -nedd 16345, forrwerrpenn >
-werrpepp 19635 (see edit. notes and collat.).
These corrections have probably as a rule been made
by the author at his first or second revision. On the other
hand it may be pointed out that he was by no means
infallible in this respect, as over 50 scribal errors of the type
gastlit for gastliz 14333, wharrp for warrp 2461, annyetenn
for annd- 15169 etc. still remain in the MS.
4. Superpositions of consonants.
In this connection a question will be discussed which is
of great importance for a correct understanding of O.’s
peculiar orthography. It has already been pointed out by
Ellis, who based his observations on White’s Facsimile P. 1,
that «the second consonant in a reduplication was sometimes
written over the other, and sometimes not. The same was
the case occasionally with 4 in 3%, etc.»
As is to be expected, however, superpositions of this
kind are found all over the MS, although with some varia-
tions as to their frequency. In order to get an approximate
estimate of the extent to which this mode of writing is used
in the O., I have investigated the 5 extant facsimiles from
this point of view. In the 220 Il. that these facsimiles
n r
comprise, I have found 103 ~ against 28 xz, 39 r ~ 28 rr,
e d 4 I
8 ¢~ 39 tt, 1c, 1 d, 1 3, 1 2 but always ss. mm is never
found, the doubling of this consonant being denoted either
with one stroke + m or by two strokes over the vowel, or
m
by m (1g instances). Cf. p. xvi. In the combination 3% the
second cons. is consistently written above the first (20 in-
stances) except in the pron. 340, in which 3% appears reg-
ularly. Apart from the cases in the facsimiles I have
h
specially noted the following instances: follzeph 166 (K. p. 2),
Google
go
h An Rr h
hehyesst 1055, suhhzen 7924, lazen 10760, lahjzre 3746,
An
10719, 10729, 10739, nehhzen 9592, 12669. The same-super-
position is invariably met with in the passages I had photo-
graphed, which comprise about 450 ll., and in which the
h
following instances of medial 3 were found:
ess 4157, 4165, 4195, 4229, 5840, 15599, haitee 5848,
9857, 10458, pee 4234, 5849, 9781, Jelleni 4241, 7719,
9782, 15431, 15481, follyebp 9318, 15417, forrbuxhenn 9266,
9756, 9798, jax 9319, lashes 9544, wise 9323, ea 15490,
15618, Areyent 15437.
h
Even 0 B.-t. : a feewauy. except in 340: dayzess
4166, jit se 4I9QI, diastoen 7781, mise 7783. Finally it may
be noted that in C.-t. the spelling Jollaest is met with (see
edit.’s note on 1. 4978 and collat.), which is probably an
h
attempt to copy B.’s follzess¢t 4981. Cf. p. 54 and chapt. VII.
Consequently, to judge from this investigation, which in
in my opinion gives a fairly correct idea of the distribution
in the MS as a whole, the double z is mostly, the double
m and yr very often, denoted by superposition. Occasionally
reduplications of the consonants ¢, d@, 3, / are rendered in
the same way. Further, with regard to the combination 3%,
it may be looked upon as pretty certain that all through
the MS the second consonant is consistently written above
the first in all words except 340, in which this mode of
Writing never appears.
Now the question arises whether this mode of writing
is a custom intentionally adopted by the author, or whether
the superposed letters have been added later, in which case
they are to be looked upon as corrections. The edit., who
touches upon this question, (W.’s edit. p. XCIII) seems to
incline towards the former view, expressing himself in the
following way: «Two different letters are sometimes found
on one stroke, as the / and @in the word child, in |. 8
Google
gI
col. 2. of Facsimile No. 2. A similar mode of repeating
the same letter takes place occasionally in the letters d, 4,
5, t, w, 3, and p. These deviations from the usual mode of
writing adopted by Ormin were occasioned probably by a
wish to economize time and space, and, if that be so, we
are indebted to his patience and liberality for their com-
paratively rare occurrence.»
nrmh
As is seen, the edit. does not mention x, 7, m, 3 at
all, but it might be assumed that he conceived them to be
w ph d
some sort of ligatures like w, 6, 4, and d, which are written
on the same stroke and of which the two former are very
often used by the side of ww, pp.
Ellis, on the other hand, has adopted the latter alter-
native for all the cases, even for the ligatures just mentioned.
In Pron. II. p. 486 footn. 2 he makes the following interesting
remark: «As we have also at length droperr (twice), Walle’
etc. ...., and as in the cases of superposition the writing
was crowded, I conceive these to have been corrections,
similar to the little accent marks by which words were
separated that had been too closely written. If then in some
cases we find a single consonant where we should have
expected a double consonant, we may fairly attribute it to
a slip which has escaped correction.»
There can be no doubt that Ellis is perfectly right, at
least as far as superpositions of the same consonants which
are not written on the same stroke are concerned. It should
be remembered that the orthographical system O. was so
anxious to introduce, was an innovation of unique character,
which must have caused its originator many technical dif-
ficulties to carry out. Over and over again he no doubt
relapsed into the spelling he was accustomed to from OE
and contemporary MSS, It is therefore to be expected that
the superpositions should appear only in words which had
a single cons. in the traditional spelling. And that is also
regularly the case in the facsimiles. The author himself was
certainly quite aware of the difficulties alluded to, and there-
fore he had all the more reason to look through his work
carefully after it was written, in order to check this point.
Google
Q2
But considering the bulk of his work, it is not surprising
that, in spite of this revision, errors should remain. The
following instances of a single cons. for an expected double
one, which are to be looked upon as scribal errors, have
been found:
Srofren D. 237, opnenn D. 262, pat D. 318, chtlden 156,
follahep 166, sunes 185, -wrthte 289, laferd 308, kinnes 321,
lafdiz 334, ey3ber 336, laferd 339, offring- 639, beginning
700, peowtenn 1075, ellderne- 1213, l@rest 1290, fassting 1450,
monep 1810, grammcund 1545 (prob.), 2 2073, steorne 2134,
brinngep 2190, tacnep 2251, libben 2364, purh 2687, oper 2707,
birp 2723, moten 2725, unnwemeddnesse 2875, lustess 2969,
greting 2999, purh 2971, anoper 3176, sawles 3933, pat 3752,
daz3es 3810, affter 4307, winenn 4510, hebing 4876, hinn-
derrling 4888, pan 5007, 5025, lot 5177, azhen 5191, leorning-
5271, murzhen 5286, dredung 5610, oc 6044, cneling 6365,
steorne ©0420, pweort 6449, -cund 6863, bollshen 7197, lihhnen
7445, biggen 7811, clensenn 7833, bitter 7967, follzhen 8058,
nemnedd 8227, laferd 8652, for 8839, nemnedd 9185, us 9577;
grammcundnesse 9784, leorning- QQ00, peowwten 10094, spelenn
10133, man 10241, leorning- 10327, lesen 10399, Sopfast 10455,
annxumnesse 10457, ¢33per 10586, opelzz (= openlty) 10592,
fillen 10817, recnebp 11208, leorning- 11550, fanding 11622,
purh 11640, fandinge’ 11804, pat 12331, peowtlenn 12551,
follshen 12915, oper 13831, dales 14749, pankess 15139, pan
15689, haffden 16477, pan 17431, shulen 17775, lust 17831,
zn 18078, dreden 18174, purh 18213, wrohkte 18540, oper
18678, wereld 18845, purh 19085, laferd 19534, zlke 19955.
As is seen from this list, the instances of 2 and ~¢ for
un and rr strongly preponderate, being 43 and 22 respect-
ively. We remember that the same consonants were in the
majority with regard to superposition. This is no doubt due
to a more frequent occurrence of 2 and 7 in close syllables |
compared with others. The endings -ev and -ev for instance
are extremely frequent. It is to be noted that a single cons.
instead of a double one appears only three times in words
in which doubling was the rule according to the traditional
spelling (vznwemedd- 2875, winenn 4510, spelenn 10133).
1 For the forms in -ing, -inng cf. Eilers p. 65—6.
Google
93
The opposite phenomenon, two consonants for one, is
another unintentional error which is a natural consequence
of the new orthography that O. had set himself to introduce.
As is to be expected, it occurs less frequently than the for-
mer. The following instances are to be explained in this
way:
depp D. 201, herr 4344, ende 4575 (cf. Eilers p. 62),
unnorne 4884, [wurrppenn 4954 (altered from wurrpshipe
probably in h. B.)], onn3e@n 6498, mutt 8530, 8531, abuttenn
9230, deffless 15737, 17500, word 16472, berenn 16690, gass-
tess 19718, wiff 19851, rthhtwiss 19969. The same is probably
the case with forrp’ 4482, 6854, 7997 (forb), 13039 (forp),
and 3errne 9072, 17962 (3erne), 18376 (Eilers p. 71).
It is possible that we have similar scribal errors in the
isolated spellings dosst 5103, masst 8522, and wasst 17566,
there being 8 dost*®, 10 mast®, and 5 wast*. These errors
' With regard to this word it may be pointed out that of the in-
stances of forrp, pepenn-, tepennforrp given by Eilers p. 72 those in ll.
8917, 10786 are erroneous readings in W.’s edit., those in Il 863, 11532,
and 18176 erroneous readings in 4.’s edit. The MS has in these cases
Jorp, orp. In |. 13039 there is no pepennforrp, as is stated by Effer
(p. 176) and Eilers (1. c.) but forrp. Consequently there remain only 5
cases of €)forrp against about 90 for, -forp (cf. Effer |. c.). — The form
JSorrprisst (= ‘athirst’) is to be eliminated from this group, as it is of
course composed of forr + prisst (OE pyrstan), not to be interpreted
Jorrp-risst, as is done by Eilers 1. c. — forrp wipp 18575 is probably a
compound and phonologically analogous to forrpwarrd, -rihht, -6i (Eilers
Pp. 72—~4), orp wipp 1336 on the contrary, although printed as one word,
are certainly two separate words.
3 To the six instances given by Effer p. 191 dost 7377 and 15358
are to be added. Cf. Lambertz § 74 Anm. 1, § 168, Zenke § 56.
® cf. Effer p. 191, Lambertz § 17 Anm. 3.
‘ These instances are found in Il. 6192, 9395, 11259, 11311, 14356. —
The attempts made by Lambertz and Zenke to account for the supposed
short vowel in this word are not very successful. The former suggests
(§ 16 Anm. 1) that the vowel has been shortened owing to the frequent
use of the form in question. The latter (p. 38) seems to assume a prior7
a double pronunciation of wast. What in my opinion weighs most in
favour of the possibility that in O.’s dialect short forms like désst, wasst
Google
94
have arisen in two ways. Sometimes, when the author was
writing down his verses, two consonants slipped in for one.
The above-mentioned corrections huss > hus 15230, rzhht-
wiss > -wts 8254, wallde > walde 3909, show that this actu-
ally has taken place. But as in some instances (see above)
I was convinced when examining the MS that the superfluous
cons. is written above the |., we must assume that O. oc-
casionally misplaced the consonants on his revision. Cf. doub-
ling of cons. in Lat. A-t. p. 102.
Even a few tasee of three consonants for two ate found:
ieorh: 1588, Jor 2217, mennnisscnesse 3103, Memes go21,
ankennedd 17716 (see edit. notes and collat.). Here we may
suppose that, when correcting his MS, O. did not notice that
the cons. he intended to double by superposition was already
reduplicated; unsex-yenndlis, which in the MS is separated in
the way indicated, is an obvious case of such inadvertency.
Cases like drunnkennnesse (kenn-nesse) 14741, 15377, 15389
are only instances of the consistency with which O. carried
through his system.
Finally we have to discuss the combined symbol 34,
h
3 which, as has been already mentioned, appears in the latter
form except in the pron. 340. This fact helps us to explain
h
why 3 for 3 is a usual scribal error: Aallze 1758, 10925,
follzenn 1908, follzesst 4723, borrzenn 6089, 7561, 16711,
burryzess 8271, witezunnge 14453. (Cf. Lambertz § 235, Anm. 1.)
Contrary to what is expected, % is found in wrezhenn 28809,
17843 (see Lambertz §§ 234, 2 and 328 and Anm. 2), which,
as A was superposed, is ca. accounted for asa miswriting
of the same kind as word, berenn etc. Another inadvertency
may also be explained by means of the same mode of
masst were occasionally used by the side of the more usual dost, wast,
mast, is the circumstance that before -s¢ shortening often took place:
lasstenn, wesste, esstess, unnwresste, mosste (cf, Luick, Gr. § 352 b). On
the other hand the long vowel is preserved in @st, leste, mest, gast,
slast, brest, pre(o)st, se(o)st (Effer p. 191). In any case it is hazardous
to draw any conclusions in this respect from isolated speclings with
double cons. in a text like the O.
Google
95
writing. 1. 8241 has durrhyzess (in both the edit.) for durr3-
hess, a reading which I conceive to be due to # having by
mistake been placed a bit to the left instead of exactly over 3.
It may now be asked whether these superposed 4's have
been added later and are to be looked upon as corrections
nor
like -z, x, etc. Such an assumption would imply that O.
originally used the symbol 3 both for the palatal and guttural
spirant in a medial position, but that subsequently it occur-
red to him that the two sounds ought to be distinguished even
graphically and that he therefore added an #4 in words which
had the latter sound. As far as the cases are concerned
where 34 goes back to OE g (guttural), this would not be
quite out of the question, as it might be assumed that O.
intended to follow tradition on this point, but that he
should ever have thought of introducing 3 as a symbol fora
guttural spirant and writing lak(h)zenn (OE hlehhan), neh(h)
3enn (OE xneahwian) I consider to be quite impossible. In
my opinion O. was determined from the beginning to use
34 as a symbol for the guttural sound in a medial position
but intentionally superposed 4% to distinguish it from 34% in
340, which no doubt was a different sound. This theory
agrees very well with the results arrived at by Lindkvist
with regard to the phonetic value of 3% in 30, recently
published in Anglia 1921. These may be summed up as
follows:
(t). Initial 34 in the O., which appears only in the
pronoun 30, «the nearest ME descendant of OE 4zo» (p. 12)
cannot be identical with the sound denoted by the same
symbol in a medial position but is (2) «an aspirated essent-
ially voiced, palatal spirant or semi-vowel» (p. 13) »very like
the sound /7z in present-day English» (p. 14). This assump-
tion, which is supported by convincing arguments, shows
that the sound in question was composed of two elements:
an aspirate and a palatal spirant. That being so, it was
only natural that O. should denote this consonantal combina-
tion with 3% written at length. Now it is a well-known fact
that O. applied phonetic principles as extensively as possible
in his orthography. Consequently, in order to get a graphic
Google
96
distinction between the combined sound in 30 and the
voiced guttural spirant in a medial position, which was a
single sound, he created a new symbol or a sort of ligature
for the latter by superposing 4.!
VI. Doubtful alterations.
Under this heading are included the alterations that, for
some reason or other, may be suspected to be in h. B.
The handwriting often indicates B., but as no other safe
tests have been found, I characterize them as doubtful.
They are of two kinds, consisting, first, of a few mar-
ginal insertions which as a rule have been substituted for
illegible or only partly legible erasures, secondly of passages
over er.
P. 82. purrh salemann yxehatenn > purrh gastltz witt
3chatenn (edit. note). The substituted words purrh gastl:3
qwétt ‘spiritually, in a spiritual sense’ were probably considered
an improvement in the intelligibility of the passage. Cf.
P. 29, P. 34—5, P. 65—7, P. 75—6. Perhaps in h. B.
l. 4344. swa summ in margin for an illeg. er. The
alteration is apparently made in connection with the preced-
ing |., which is over er. (edit. note). The handwriting seems
to be that of B. In 1. 16312 the same words (swa summ)
are found in margin (see collat.), whether in h. B. is uncertain.
It may be suggested that the synonymous expression a// se
(swa se} was written first. Cf. er. t. after 1. 1441 (edit. note
on |. 1442), where aé/ allse occurs twice, and unerased A-t.
16704 7 all all swa se moyses.
1. 4738. Forr idelllez3c is hefedd plihht in the margin
for an illegible er., according to the edit. in h. B. (edit. note
on 1. 4738). Cf. 1. 10214 Forr 32ferrnesse iss hafedd plihht
in A.-t.
1 Cf. Skeat, Twelve Facs. p. 11, § 10: »In late MSS (i. e. about 1450)
a compound symbol, as ¢A, ch, gh denoted a single simple sound, some
scribes grew into the habit of writing a bar through the %, or above (or
through) both the letters.»
Google
97
l. 7266. -2am in kimm over er. and the three first words
of the next |. 7 kexg off interlined for four words that have
been erased (edit. note on 1. 7266). The handwriting indic-
ates B.
1. 9352. to donne in margin in a handwriting like that
of B. for a word erased after dzgannz. The inflected inf. is
very rare in the O., there being only two other instances in
A.-t., in both cases the verb don, viz. whatt himm wass to
donne 2949, off whatt hemm wass to donne 10106. In the
former (as object to dzgzzmenn) as well as in the latter posi-
tion the uninflected inf. is the rule (see Weyel pp. 12, 22,
Wiilfing pp. 207, 211). The two instances of this archaic
use in A.-t. are no doubt to be looked upon as metrical.
forms.
The er. does not enable us to see what was first written.
Conjecturally I reconstruct ll. 9351—2 as follows:
Aer pann pe laferrd iesu crist | Bigann himmsellfenn
owwperr, the correction in this case being caused by the
nom. himmsellfen; cf. p. 1 foll.
Il. 11210, 11294. purrh weress fulle fowwerrtt;; fulle in
margin for an illegible word erased after furrh (edit. note
on |. 11210), — The subst. weress is elsewhere in the O.
often furnished with the epithet al/zhe (5382, 5394, 5626,
10458, 19439, 19443), Aallzhe weress meaning ‘the pious’ as
opposed to ‘the impious’. It seems to have been a current
theological term, taken from the Bible; cf. ‘sanctis’ Coloss.
I, 1, ‘omnibus sanctis’ Philip. I, 1, Ephes. I, 1; 2 Corinth.
I, 1, ‘vocatis sanctis’ Rom. I, 7, ‘sancti Dei homines’ 2 Peter
I, 21. This term might have slipped in here erroneously,
weress fowwerrtt; referring to the forty generations of Christ
(Matth. I, 1—16).
In its corrected form the expression is interesting from
the point of view of accidence, fu//e being without a parallel
in a corresponding position. It may be asked whether it is
an adj. or adv. In his glossary (H.'s edit. vol. II, p. 462) White
has given it as an e-form of the adv. fu//. Sachse (p. 58
footn.), on the other hand, who cannot account for this ex-
ceptional inorganic -e, inclines to the view that it is an adj.,
and he refers to the OE instance kzg weron seofon dagas
7 — 21:03. S. Holm.
Google
98
fulle (\. c.). It is rather a complicated question to decide;
perhaps it would be most logical to look upon /fx/le as an
adv. meaning ‘quite’, ‘fully’, ‘the full number of; cf. OE
Ourh tyn winter full, and ful X winter (Wiilfing II, p. 278).
The OE instance given by Sachse does not seem to me
to be quite analogous to the one discussed here, but cor-
responds exactly to O.'s ehhte dajzxess fulle 4213 ‘eight clear
days’. But if fud/e is an adv., the e-form used here is the
only one in the whole MS. Not only in A.-t. but also in B.-t.
is the form /u// in the sense of ‘very’ frequently met with:
Jull innwarrdli, D. 325, full glade 160, fulzwiss extremely
frequent; see edit.’s glossary p. 462; note also the B.-cor-
rections openniike > all full openn (p. 29 foll.) gode cweme >
godd full cweme (p.7), and the recurrent phrase fatt witt to
full wel (p. 41). I cannot find a satisfactory explanation of
this e-form. It is possible that it is an inadvertency on
the part of the scribe, whoever he may be, who was ev-
idently at a loss for a suitable dissyllable as a substitute for
the word erased.
1. 12460. he toc to wenenn pa in the margin for an er.
of which only the words ze deofell are legible. — Conjectur-
ally I reconstruct the |. in the following way: purrh whatt |
te deofell wennde pa; cf. 12390 Nu wennde wel fe lape gast,
and 12432 Acc wennde patt he were pa. If the reconstruc-
tion suggested is correct, the marginal expression may have
been chosen because it emphasizes better the commence-
ment of the action.
1.15785. z pe temmple is in the margin for an erased
passage of which /ess is legible. This may be a fragment
of “urrtless, a synonym of cul/fress, in which case ll. 15784
—5 originally ran: Wenn saldenn pare nowwt7 shep | 7 cull-
ress operr turrtless; cf. Twa cullfress operr turrtless 7892.
From the point of view of the contents, z pe femmple seems —
to be quite unnecessary, as the place in question is already
indicated by pere 15784, referring to femmple 15782. The
marginal expression has therefore evidently been added to
fill up the verse after the words disapproved of had been
erased. Probably in h. B.
], 16700, patt stah is over er. and forr menn in the
Google
99
margin for an illegible er. of about four syllables (cf. edit.
note). Contextually this |. is part of a passage (16698—
16703) that paraphraseés S. John III, 13: ‘Et nemo ascendit
in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, Filius hominis qui est
in caelo. In the exposition of this Gospel the same passage
seems to be repeated, but unfortunately the text is corrupt,
only the words patt stah forr 17369 being legible. Probably
in h. A.
ll. 16860—1. fra pe follc | purrh haliz lif 7 lare in the
margin for an illegible er. The same passage returns in ll.
16866—7. The first part of it (fra pe follc) is over er. (see
collat.) and may therefore be due to the same h. as the
corresponding words in |. 16860; the second part, on the
contrary, must a priori be in h. A. With regard to the
source of this passage (16856—16867) the edit. and Sarra-
zin differ, the former suggesting St. Augustine (note on 1.
16862), the latter (pp. 19, 21) positively declaring it to have
been taken from Bede. It is always hard to settle questions
of this kind, especially as in this case both alternatives seem
to be acceptable. The passage in Bede on which Sarrazin
bases his opinion is as follows: ‘Pharisei interpretantur divisi,
eo quod singularem sibi prz czteris scientiam legis et ob-
servantiam mandatorum Dei vindicabant’ (ed. Migne III, 16).
Cf. with this farisew bitacnepp uss | Shedinng 16862—3,
Abufenn all pe lede 16857 (= pre ceteris). purrh halt, lif 7
lare may be a somewhat freer transcription of ‘scientiam
legis’ etc. On the other hand shiledd ut all fra pe follc
16860 and shadde || Swa summ hemm puhhte fra pe follc
16866 seem to be a literal translation of the Augustinian
‘quasi 4 grege separatus’ (edit. note |. c.). It is possible
that the marg. insertion and |. 16866, which is over er., are
due to B., who supplemented the Bede version with the
Augustinian one.
Il. 19109—1I9113, except the first word fazt in 1. 19109,
are in the margin for a legible er. comprising three ll. (see
edit. note on |. Ig109). From a theological point of view
the insertion, compared with the erased passage, forms (1) a
correction: purrh hepenndom forrblendedd > purrh hete 7
nib etc. 19110, the Jews, who are here spoken of (191009),
Google
100
not being heathens in a narrow sense of the word (cf. Cath-
olic Encyclop. vol. XI, p. 388), (2) an addition (19111—19112).
Besides, the insertion in question implies an improvement. in
clarity of expression: Patt lede > patt iudewtsshe follc. These
facts indicate B. On the other hand there is an acc. with
an inf. without fo after don in the sense of ‘cause—to'
(19112), a construction which we cannot expect B. to be
guilty of, since, as we have seen before, he has even corrected
A. on this point (p. 37).
1. 19209. fo is over er. and firrp- in firrprenn’ is in the
margin for an illegible er. (edit. note). The handwriting in-
dicates B.
Finally we may note the following passages, which are
over er. and the handwriting of which is like that of B.:
pe sterrne comm rihht tll 7336, puss brihht 7344, wurrp-
like 8177 (cf. edit. note), Ad/s 2ff 8178, Swa summ icc habbe
shewedd 8334, ..pa | Wibp fullukht 9191—2, 7 fele tokenn
shriffte | Off alle 9251—2, .. he wass wis o lare 9328, -nepp
patt te goddspell se33p | patt sannt tohan bapptisste | Wass
sennd 9343—5 (see edit. note and collat.), 4/2 hemme 9409,
..himmsellf || Bitwenenn hemm to spellenn 9421—2, .. bape
17185, alle samenn Per 17411, per zt patt lape wesste 17416,
..he warrh all 17435, all.. iss sum 18750, himim 19083.
Vil. Hand C,
As has been pointed out by W., there is a third scribe
in the MS: ... «a third (i. e. hand) in supplying the MS
' With regard to this verb Weyel says (p. 31): »Furrprenn, firrprenn
... kommt nur einmal mit Inf. vor und zwar hat es den Inf. mit fo bei
siche. And in foot-note?: »White giebt im Glossar nur die Form /rrp-
renn ane, It may be pointed out here, however, that the forms /urrprenn,
furprenn 1350, 5084 in W.’s edit. are misprints for firrprenn (|. 1350
MS /rvirrp-), which is also duly remarked by the edit, (W.’s edit. vol. II,
p- 659). Under such circumstances it is only natural that the glossary
should give only fivrprenm. Further, the inf. of the same verb is found
not once but three times (1350, 5084, 19209), of which two instances are
followed by an inf. with Zo.
Google
101
note at the fiftieth Text (Huc usque 1 Volumen, edit. note
vol. II, p. 347), and also Texts at the respective Homilies».
(W.’s edit. p. LXXxXvll, H.’s edit. p. Lxxvi.) And in a note
on |. 109 W. says: «At this line in the MS the text of the
first homily is written apparently in the hand noticed at
T. L. The same hand appears to have been also employed
in inserting in the margin of the MS the other texts to which
the homilies have reference».
Of the English text C. has written:
(1) the 13 inserted leaf (7471—8o).
(2) 4978—81 at the bottom of the col.!
(3) 8343—46 in a vacant space on the 17* inserted leaf.
(4) 8592 p wet tu wel to sope written in the text above
swa summ pe boc uss kibepp erased. ,
(5) 19611—14 at the bott. of the col. (see edit. notes
on the respective ll). |
According to the edit. three marginal insertions, viz.
5053, 6762, 7675—8o, are also due to the same h., a view
which I cannot share, as both paleographical and linguistic
factors contradict this assumption. But before trying to as-
certain who is the scribe of the last mentioned I]. we had
better see what characterizes the passages which I agree
with the edit. in ascribing to C.
The handwriting (see Facsim. 3) is smaller and firmer
and easily distinguished from that of A. and B. It is also
later, as is seen from the way in which the writing has been
placed in the MS. The passages 2—4 are only reiterations
of marginal insertions in h. B., so there are two versions,
one in h. B., and the other in h. C., the latter rewritten,
perhaps in order to place them more conspicuously nearer
the text of which they form part. The inserted leaf is
only a transcription of A.-t. ll. 6494—6504, which paraphrases
S. Matthew II, 12. Contrary to B., who has corrected and
‘added, C. has only played the part of a transcriber.
The Latin texts (not to be confused with those in-
troducing the whole work) are as a rule found immedi-
ately before the beginning of the respective paraphrases, viz.
Il. 109, 3270, 7571, 8347, 8879, 9123, 10257, 11319, 12566,
1 Not to be confused with the same marginal ll. in h. B.
Google
102
12720, 14000, 15538, 16608, 17906, 17984, I9551, 19819,
19996. The 2™4, 8 and 12" texts are lacking (cf. edit. pp.
LXXXII—1V), although the corresponding paraphrases are ex-
tant (Il. 197, 3388, 7631), and the 4 and 26™ have been errone-
ously placed before the beginning of the corresponding ex-
positions (homilies) (ll. 2685, 17493). The paraphrase of the
former is lost, and was so perhaps even when the C.-text
was written’, the latter begins at 1. 16712.
If we compare the Latin C.-text with the corresponding
A.t., a few differences in the spelling will be noticed. In
the latter doubling of cons. has sometimes slipped in (appar-
ently unintentionally): ascezzdit, uendentess (XXIV), petruss,
iohaness (CCXXXIII), asscendentibus (XV). That is never
found in the former. C. always abbreviates the name of
Fsus: the or JHC, A. writes it in full, zesus by the side of
thc. Note also zacharias (l. 109), pharisei(s) (Il. 16608, 19551),
herodiadem 19819, stccar 19996 in C.-t. but pharysei(s), hero-
_ dyadem, syccar in the corresponding A.-t.; further sesmtaretur
(A.) ~ temptar- (C.), lgavit (A.) ~ alli- (C.), terosol- (A.) ~
zerosol- and zersol (C.). It seems that the two scribes have
used different versions of the Bible.
In the English C.-text the following deviations from
O.’s orthographical system are found:
hem 7471, 7477, him, purh 7472, on3@n 7473; 4978—81
(see edit. note on these ll. vol. I, p. 363): usnderrfott,
strengpe (cf. strennchbe in A.- and B.-t.), luuesst, wih, herte;
8343—46: god, almaht7;, folshenn, wurpt; 8592: wit (for wet);
19611—14: herr, endef, goddspel, birpp (for dzrrp), purth,
watt (for whatt), leruep. In addition the esound in per 7478
and slep 7479 is rendered with e for @ in A.- or B.-t.
C. has evidently felt obliged to make an attempt to
apply O.’s orthography (cf. Ded. 97—110), but failed. The
spellings e for @ indicate a later period.
C. differs from A. and B. even on another point. It is
a well-known fact that O. invented a special symbol for the
back stop, which is regularly used even in B.-t., whereas the
continental @ is employed for the dz sound (Napier, Notes
1 Cf. the MS note at Text XXXII and edit. pp. Lxxxr, vol. II,
P. 347-
Google
103
pp. 71 foll.). C., on the contrary, used the continental g in
godess and gast 7471, 7477 but O.’s special symbol in exugell
7472 and ping 7480. See Facs. 3. Evidently C. has copied
A. in the latter words but followed the scribal habits he was
used to in the case of the former.
It might be supposed that the same scribe has altered
3 to g (dzhk sound) in 3errsale@m in ll. 8439, 9182, 9188 (Napier,
1. c. p. 74 footnote®; cf. also Reichmann § 19, Anm.). Anyhow
these alterations cannot be due to B., since there are 27
instances of 3errsalem/(-) left uncorrected (Reichmann § 19).
As has been mentioned above, three marginal insertions
are supposed by the edit. (notes on Il. 5053, 6762, 7675) to
be in the same h. This is certainly not the case. First,
the handwriting is not, as far as I am aware, that of C.,
secondly none of the orthographical peculiarities characteristic
of that h. are met with in the passages in question, which
all exhibit the usual doubling of consonants. Consequently
they must be in A. or B.
- With regard to ll. 7675—8o0, which deal with the pro-
phetess Azna, and are a transcription of S. Luke II, 36—37,
the common B.-correction puss se33p pe boc > patt wett tu
wel 7678 is evidence enough that A. has written these Il.
The same is probably also true of the two other marg.
insertions, as they are necessary both to the sense and the
rhythm. It appears very improbable, if not impossible, that
such conspicuous inadvertencies should have escaped A.'s atten-
tion, especially as he has carefully revised his work. Cf. p. 87.
In Pref. p. LXXvVI the edit. says that a fourth h. has
been used «in a marginal addition at col. 230». This refers
to the common concluding phrase Her endepp nu, etc. (cf.
p. 53) which has been dealt with in a rather intricate way.
It has first been written in a fragmentary form in the margin
of col. 228; then it has been erased by B. and placed at the
bottom of col. 230, apparently according to the arrangement
pointed out above (p. 53) in the following form Her endepp
nu piss goddspell puss 7 cetra. Finally another h. has erased
7 cetra and completed the phrase with the following varia-
tions in the orthography: dzrp, purh-, loke (for lokenn inf.),
wat (for whatt), lerep (see edit. note on Il..9331—4). The
Google
é> €0
104
inconsistent spelling shows an obvious resemblance to the
corresponding passage in |. 19611 (= C.-t.), and in my opinion
the handwriting is the same, The inf. /ofe’ with loss of
nm, which indicates a later period, is no doubt characteristic
of the scribe’s own dialect, whereas /okemn 19611 is correctly
copied from the B.-t.
The only partly legible passage which is written in a
small h. at the bottom of coll. 245—6 (see edit. note on 1.
9771) as well as the words V siclis argenti* written in the
margin at |. 7812, where the corresponding English expres-
sion occurs, Wipp fife wehhte off sillferr (edit. note on 1.
7812), seem also to be due to C. With regard to the former
passage no information is given by the edit. as to the h.; the
latter is said to be «in an old hand» (edit. note 1. c.).
In ll. 4320, 4322 the Greek letters y and s are super-
posed by the interlinear glosses fz and ess respectively,
according to the edit. «in a very early if not the first hand»,
and in 1. 3537 #@se is glossed in the margin by the mysterious
word fuge written twice (see K. and collat.; cf. edit. note),
according to the edit. «in an early hand» (note on |. 3537).
The two instances of ¢uge are in my opinion in h. C., at
any rate certainly not in A. or B., and the same is probably
the case with the glosses fz and ess.
Vil. Corrections in a fourth hand.
A few corrections must be assumed to have been made
in a fourth h., as they exhibit linguistic peculiarities found
in none of the texts which are due to A., B., or C.
This applies in the first place to the numerous reinser-
tions of o in the combination eo dealt with above (p. 61).
I have already tried to show that these cannot have been
made by A. or B. It may now be added that they cannot
1 follshe 8030 is no doubt miswritten for Jolixhenn, cf. edit. p. Lxv
footnote 105, Thiins § 10, Anm., Zenke § 46.
* Fragments of this marginal insertion are seen in Napier’s Facsim.
Google
105
be ascribed to C. either, because in that case we should
have expected him to employ the spelling eo in such words
as here (poss. pron.), 7475, herte (edit. note on ll. 4978—81),
ben (1. c. 8343—6).
In this category of corrections I include ten > maeniman> men
in the l. 7 swa we muxhenn alle men 7751 (see collat. and
K.), which implies that a//e should be read as a dissyllable.
We are able to establish immediately that this alteration is
not made p. m., because no form mez occurs elsewhere in
the O. — cf. maene (subst.; see edit. gloss.) and menelike
(adj.) 2503 — secondly, because there are g instances of
alle zm@n in unerased A.-t. (3376, 4554 insert. A.-t., 5506,
8185, 8877, 9121, 10151, 17741, 19477), two in erased t. (after
ll. 1667, 7994; see edit. note on these Il.). It is true that the
prefix z- < OE 3e- has as a rule been dropped in the O.
as well as in most other ME texts from the North and Mid-
land, as has been shown by Slettengren (pp. 3, 12, 50), but
it has been retained in a few words (zmen, inoh, twhillc,
fult(3)wiss, tstanedd, as 3e- in 3ehatenn).
As regards zen Slettengren explains the retention of
z- in the following way (p. 59): «It is remarkable that this
word is used only in the collocation alle zmen ‘all together’.
The retention of z- is in my opinion due to rhythmical con-
siderations. It is well known that a succession of two stressed
syllables is instinctively avoided in English. zen in alle
zme@n with the easy-flowing rhythm _ ~ or 4 —_» was retained».
As far as I can see, this explanation cannot be true, at least
of the collocation alle imen. For it should be remembered
that in ordinary prose -e in aé/e can not be elided, (cf. alle
bedenn 697, alle pa 695) and that in O.’s verse the rhythm
+—~+ would be preserved even if z- in z#z@n is dropped. Conse-
quently, if rhythm has operated here in the way alluded to,
we must assume that zm@en very often occurred in stress-
groups of the above-mentioned type, e. g, all imaen, pe33
zmen.' Whatever the explanation may be, the occurrence of
zmzen in such a position that in O.’s verse z- could be omitted
1 Cf. fuli(g)wiss < full iwiss, in which the spelling with only one 7
shows that it was looked upon as one word (Bjérkman, Anglia 37, p.
370), but which is not analogous to alle imen (cf. Slettengren p. 60).
Google
106
without the number of metrical syllables being changed,
indicates that the prefix in question was also kept in prose.
The other possibility is that the alteration in question
is due to B. But, as is seen from the corrections and in-
sertions in h. B., this scribe was contemporaneous with A.
and has on the whole the same dialect. It is true that B.
has erased two passages in which a/le zm@n appears, but
he has apparently done so for other reasons (see p. 54).
Further, if we consider the general character of B.'s altera-
tions, it does not seem very likely that he should have erased
the prefix z only once but left 9 instances untouched. It
would therefore appear that this sporadic alteration is due
to a later copyist or reader in whose dialect m@z was the
only current form.
D. 322 and D. 331 ¢ in “ss, preceded by patt, is altered
to p in late h. (see collat. and K.). Now it is a well-known
fact that in the O. initial f of «pronominal words» (e. g.
pa, per, panne, pe, pu, patt, piss; see Blackburn p. 48) be-
comes ¢ after words ending in d or ¢ and also after s in the
combination fess ze. This sound-change is consistently?
carried out, even in B.- and C.-texts; cf. the usual B.-correc-
tion patt wett tu wel to sope (p. 41) and h. C. 32 patt iss
patt tu etc. (edit. note on |. 4978). Hence it is seen that
the alteration in question has nothing to do with O.’s dialect.
l. 12780. The words uss dide are erased (edit. note on
this 1.), apparently because if these words were retained, the
passage would be linguistically incorrect, there being another
predicate, uss didenn, in ]. 12782. If A. or B. had been guilty
of this er., he would certainly have put in another expression
so as to save the metre.
The words cuawenn, cnewe (12941, 13693) were originally
written without 2, which was then added above |. in a small
h. (see K. and collat.). The correction 3errde > yxerr"de
1 According to Blackburn (p. 48) there are two exceptions, viz. D.
15 (witt patt) and |. 13576 (filled pa). The last instance, however, is a
misreading or misprint, the MS having fi//edd ¢a (see collat. and K.); note
also skarnedd tar 7397 (thus W. and H.) which K. (p. 9), as far as I am
aware, crroneously interprets as skarnedd der (cf. collat. 1. 7397). Conse-
quently there remains only one exception (wétt patt D. 15) (see edit.
Facsim. 3), which must be looked upon as a scribal error for wrtt fatt.
Google
ad a eer — ey eegr
107
17001 is probably due to the same h. (cf. K. and collat.).
Similar corrections in a late h. are a// > alll 353 and zxoh
10722, for which see collat. at these Il.
The corrections a// > alls 9823, shaffde > shaffte 13980,
pettre > pex3zre 16547 (see edit. notes) also seem to be made
in a later h, than A. and B.
Under the words z dale 13264 a modern h. has written
an dale, dal.
In some parts of the MS there are small vertical strokes
(see Napier’s Facs. and Facs. No. 1), which have been in-
serted to separate the words. This was evidently considered
to be necessary, because the writing in the O. MS is as a
rule so crowded as not to allow anybody to see where a
word begins or ends. Although of frequent occurrence these
strokes are not put in consistently. In most of the inserted
leaves, for instance, they are lacking, and often elsewhere
(see W.’s Facs.).
Ellis is of the opinion that the author himself put in
these strokes in order to make his writing more easily legible
(Pron. II, p. 486, footn. 2; see p. 91). Skeat, on the other hand
(Twelve Facs. p. 7) supposes them to be due to a modern h.
If Ellis was right in his assumption, the marks in question
would give us valuable information as to the many cases
where it is uncertain whether we are dealing with a com-
pound or a noun + noun. Everything, however, points to the
probability of their having been added in a very late h.
First, they do not appear with any consistency. Secondly
they are lacking in er. t., which indicates that they are not
due to A., and thirdly — what most strongly tells against
Ellis’s assumption — they are sometimes wrongly placed.
The prep. uppo(nn), for instance, is denoted as two words
(thus 9269, 10392). The same is the case with “e/lewa 9699
and cullfrebridd 7887, which were probably felt as com-
pounds. It is possible that W. and H. have in some cases
followed these indications, which would account for inad-
vertencies such as meddrestreon, neddre streon (9265, 9793),
Jorpwipp 1336, forrh wihh 18575, hellepine 8418, 11858,
13677 etc., helle pine 15437.
Google
Index.’
[The figures refer to the pages.]
a, see a(n). anoper 92
abraham, habr- 77 antiochya, -iam 57
abut(tlenn XXxXIX', 93 arrchelaw, -lauss 57, 76, 76"
acab 79 arriuss 64, 76, 76!
adam 77 ascenndit 102
zeddmodnessess 15 -as(s) 76, 76°
zest 94) asscendentibus 102
zpelic, -like 30, 31 asse cribbe 15?
affter 92 augus(s)tuss 76
alle imzn 105, 105!, 106 awihht 32
(al)ligavit 102 azhen(n) 90, 92
all(l) 66, 84, 86, 107 a33 84
alls 107
allse 51, 96 ba 36, 68
alls iff 100 badd 39
all swa 96 balaam 77
almahtiz 102 bapptisste(ss) 49, 71
-am(m) 77 barrness 17
amminadab, (-dib) 78 beginning 92
a(n) 20—23, 24’, 26, 27, 75 ben 62, 75, 81, 105
ankennnedd 94 beodenn 61
ann 22! beop 82
annd 34—36, 68 berrenn 93, 94
ann(d)- 89 bi-, (be-) 56, 84
Anna 103 Bible 45', 49, 49?
annxumnesse 92 bidell 49
1 OE, Latin and Greek words of which there are ME equivalents
are not included.
Google
biggen 92
bigunnenn; -edd 18, 71
bikahht 79
bilappedd 18
bilefenn, -edd 19!
bir(r)p, birpp 3, 92, 102, 103
bisskop(ess) 79}
bitacnenn, -edd 84, 89
bitter 92
boc 41—44, 42", 47—49, 49”,
62
bollzhen 92
borrzenn 94
brapbpe 54°
brest 74, 94?
brepbre 17
brihht 79, 100
brinngeb 92
bucc 7
bucca 7
burrhzess 94
butenn XXxI1x'
butan >
but(t) » , 76}
cafarrnaum 76', 77, 77', 79
camb 8, 79
cana(nea) 57, 577, 79, 80
cannst, kann(st) 79, 80
care, kare 79
caym 79
c(h)ana 56, 577, 79
chaungeours 34
chaungeris 34
cherubyn 50, 50!, 57
childen 92
child(ess) 17, 70
clap 8
clennesse 54°
Google
109
clensenn 92
cnawenn 106
cneling 92
cnes 74
cnewe 106
crisstene 51, 51!
crisstene follc 51
crisstnedd 51, 51
crisstnedd follc 51
crist, -e 9, 49, 85
cristess bidell 49
cristess derrlinng 49
cristess hird 51, 51°
cristess be(o)ww 49
cwennkenn, -edd 18
cullfrebridd 107
cullfress 98
-cund 92
dzledd 86
dep, -e 8, 9
depp 93
dew 8
dal(es) 92, 107
dauid 57
dauipp, -id 57
da3zhess 17, 90
da3z3, -es 8, 92
deadlic 31
deffless 93
de(o)fell, deofle 17°, 62, 66,
98
de(or) (subst.) 75
dep 10
derrf 11
derrlinng 49
dom 8
don 37, 38, 387, 97, 100
donne 97
110
dos(s)t 93, 937" *
dredung 92
drazhenn go
dreden, dredd(e) 18, 92
dreri3 61
drezhenn 90
droh(h) xxxtx!
drunnkennnesse 94
ealdlic 31
efennlic 31
efft onn- 84
eleazar 67
ellderne- 92
endep 102
ennde 93
enngell 103
ennglissh 35
erpliz kare 54°
e(o)rpe 61, 62, 78
e(o)rplic, -like, -liz 30, 62, 73
ess 104
esstess 93
eue 57
ezechiel, -yel 57, 74, 74°, 75
ex3per(r) 66, 71, 72, 92
fanding(e) 92
Farisew 99
fassting 92
fife 51
fillen 92
firrst 84
firrprenn 100, 100!
flesh 80
flzshlic, -like 30, 31, 80
flen 62
flessh 80
Google
flod, -e 8, 9
follc, -ke 17, 99
follzenn, -esst 94
fol(l)zhe(nn), -esst, -eb(p) 89,
90, 92, 102, 104!
for 92
forrbed 39
forrbuzhenn 90
*forrdemedd 85
forrhoredd 18
forrr 94
forrswundennle3z3c 54°
(-)for(r)p 93, 93°
forrprisst 93?
for(r)p wipp 93", 107
forrwerrpenn, -epp 89
forrworrpenn 84, 85
fowwre 7 twennti3 67
freondess 17
fresshe 81
frofre 15, 85, 86
frofren 92
ful 11 |
fuli(z)wiss 25, 98, 105, 1057
full, -e 11, 12, 13, 84, 97, 98
furrprenn 1007
galile(o), -lew 63—5, 64?
galnesse(ss) 15, 54°
gas(s)t, -e€Ss 8, 85, 86, 93; 93°,
103
gastlic, -ke 30, 31
gastliz, (-lit) 89, 96
gastliz witt 96
giferrnesse 287
gillt, -e 8, 9
. gluterrnesse(ss) 15, 54°, 89
god, -e (subst.) 9
god, -e (adj.) 7, 8,.10, I!
god(d), gode(ss) 7—10, 49, 68,
87, 98, 102, 103 |
god(d)spell 41, 45, 47, 49, 49°,
53, 102, 103
goddspellboc 42, 42', 43, 46, 48
grammcund(-) 92
grediznesse 28, 28!, 209, 73
gress 8I
greting 92
grimme 10
grimmele33c 54?
grimme wundess 51
habbe 75, 77, 100
habbenn 77?
hzefedd mahhtess 54
heefedd plihht 96
hzefedd sinness 54, 73
hese 104
hzebenndom 99
hepbing 92
hafe 75, 77
hafenn 58, 77?
haffden 92
haliz boc 41, 42, 42°, 46, 48,
492 |
haliz gast(ess) 85
haliz lif 99
hall3(h)e 90, 94, 97
hallzhe weress 97
hame 8, 9
harrd 10, II
heh 10
hehzhesst 90
hell 84
helleniht 15
hellcwalu 15
helle, -ss 14—16
helle dep 15
Google
helle fir 15
helle grund 15
helle pine 15
helle pitt 15
helle beod 15
helle waress 15
helle wa(wenn) 15, 107
hellpe 84
hellwerod 15
helyas(s), -yamm 76, 77
helyse(o)w 81
hem(m) 36, 86, 102
he(o)fennlic, -ke 30, 31
he(o)ffne(ss) 62, 73, 75
heora 14
he(o)re 36, 71, 105
herodiadem 102
herodias, -yas 76
herr 93, 102
her(r)te 62, 71, 72, 102, 105
hete 7 nip 99
hezhenn, -edd 17, 18
him 102
himmsellf, see -sellf
hinnderrling 92
hird, -ess XXX1X!, 66, 67
his(s), hise 13, 14
ho 14, 71
hof(f) xxx1x?
hus(s), -e 9, 89, 94
i, see inn
idelllez3c 96
idell zellp 54°
iechonias(s), -yas(s) 57, 76
ierosol- 102
iersol- 102
lerycho 57
iesu crist- 39, 85
I1I2
iesus(s), -um(m) 38, 39, 39’,
76, 77, 102
il(I)ke 36, 92
(i)mzen 105, 106
inn, i (prep.) 24—28, 24
_ 27", 37, 84, 92
inn, -e 9
-in(n)g 6, 92
innsihht 52
inntill 37, 84
inoh 56, 105, 107
iohan bapptisste 49
is(s)razle 66, 66°
issrzele 66°
issraelisshe 667
istanedd 105
Ithamar 67
indewisshe 100
iwhillc 105
1,2,3,4
’
kafe 79
kaggerrle33c 79
kald 79
kalldea(-) 79
kallde(o)wisshe, call- 79
kalldewe 79
kalldisskenn, call- 79, 80
kallf(ess), callf- 79
kam 77
kanndell- 79
kanunnkess 79
karitep, cari- 79
karrte 79
kasere, kaserr- 31, 32
kasstell-, casstell 79
kayphas(s) 76
ke338e- 31, 32
kin 55, 56, 80, 92
kind 15?
Google
king. -e 8, 17, 97
kinn(e), -S(S) 15, 17, 66, 79s
97
kinnness 94
lac, -ke 9
lzrest 92
lzeste gq‘
lafer(r)d 49, 58, 66, 85, 92
laf(f)diz 58, 66, 92 |
lakenn, -edd 18, 187
land, -e 9
lare(ss) 15, 99
lasstenn 934
latin 36
latin boc 41, 42, 42', 44, 46,
47, 47°
lap II
lauerrd 56, 57
lazaruss 76
lazhe 90
lazhelike go
lazjhenn 18, 90
lahzhre go
lede 62, 99, 100
lef 75
le(o), -ness 75, 78
le(o)m, -e 7
leorning- 92
lerep 103
lernep 102
lesen 92
leun(ess) 75, 76, 76', 78
-le33¢ 4—7
libben 70, 92
-lic, -like 29-—31, 30', 31!
liccness 6
lif, -e 9, 99
lifepp 58
E13
lihhnen 92 modi(3)nesse 25, 54°
lihht 7 monep 92
-liz 30', 31, 313 mosste 934
loff, lofe 8,9 moten 72, 92
loke(nn) 39, 103, 104 — mup 8
lott, lotess 67, 68, 92 mujhe, -n 90, 92
lucas(s), -am(m) 75, 76, 76°, ~ =
79 nzfre 40, 401
lufe(ss) 15, 52 na(n) 20 — 23, 26, 27, 40, go!,
lus(s)t, -ess 52, 92 75, 78, 79
lutenn, lutte 19 nani(3) 40
luuesst 58, 102 nat 88
; nawihht 32
macherdénnte 57 nazarenuss 76
“mene 105 ne 38—40, 4o!
meenelike 31 neddre(ss) 17
mest 94' neddre streon 171, 107 |
mahhte(ss) 17, 52, 88 neh(h) xu?
man(n), -e 9, 17, 92 nehh3henn 90
mannkinne, -ss 15 nemnedd 92
mas(s)t 93, 93* -ness(e) 5—7
Map(p)e(o)w 63-65, 75 nichodemus 57
ma3z3, (subst.) 70 -nisse 7
ma3z3denn 70 nohht 32, 38— 40, 86!
mec 61 nowwhar 39, 40
. mede 88 nowwperr 40, 71
melichisedec 57 -nysse 7
menn, -ess 8, 17
mennnisscnesse 94 0, see o(nn)
meocnesse 54° — oc g2
Messyas(s), -yam(m) 76, 77 o(nn) 20—7, 241, 25!
mett 7 mep 54° oferrwerrc 69
mi, see mi(n) | offring- 92
michazl 57 ohht 32
mi(n) 20-23, 241, 26, 27 oliueti 57
min, -e, -es 7, 13, 14 | on(n)zzen(n) 93, 102
minde 52 open(n)like, -liz 29—31, 87,
minetere(ss) 17, 33 | 92, 98
min(n)diznesse XL, 52 Ophanim 50!
8 — 22103. S. Holm.
Google
II4
opnenn 92. sec 10
orrmulum 77 (-)sellf, -enn 1—5, 66, 78, 88,
oper 72, 92 . 97
owwpberr 71 se(o)st 94?
seraphyn 50, 50'
pasca 56 serrfenn 58, 68, 84
pascha 56 serruenn 58, 68
paschali 56 serrzhe 54°
pasche 56, 57 sextene 67
paska 56, 80 shadde (shadd) 18, 99
passke(-) 56 shed 52
petruss 76, 102 7 shedinng 99
phari-, pharysei(s) 102 shaffte 17, 107
pilate 89 , shorrt, -e 10, II
posstless 17 shulen 92
preost, -ess 17, 62, 66, 94! sibbe 55, 56
propitiatoriumm 77 siccar, syccar 102
siclis argenti 104
rachel 57 | _ skarn 79
radde 18 skarnedd 79, 106!
redelike 30, 31 . skapedd 79
recnepp 92... skapelzs 79
redd 18 skabesst 79
rihht ‘dexter’ 12, 13 skiledd ut 99
rihht (adv.) 67. skill 52
rihht, -e 10, If, 86 slep, -e 8, 9, 102
rihhtwis(s) 89, 93, 94 slast 94!
rode pine 15 slep 102
rosinng 54° _ sleppte 18
sop, -e (subst.) 9, 41, 78, 81,
sabbatumm 73, 77 106 ot hy
sezhenn go . sop. -e (adj.) 10, II, IOI
salemann 96 | sob boc 41, 42, 48, 62, 66
sannderrmann, -menn 89 sopfast 92 ©
satanas 76, 76° | spelenn 92 -
saul 76° stafflike, -liz 31
sawle, -s(s) 15, 17, 71, 92 stah xL' 98, 99
scaldess 79 7 stan 8 ,
Scripture 451, 49 ste(o)r(r)ne. aes
Google
stille 10, 10°
strang 10
strenedd 62
strengbe (strenncbe) 102
suhh3zhenn go
sunennda33 72
sune(s) 87, 92
swa summ 96, 100
sylfum 4
ta 106!
tacnenn, -edd, -epp 84, 92
ter 106
takenn till 36, 37
takenn wibp 36, 37
taless 17
tanne 68
tatt 106'
temmple 98.
tem(p)taretur 102
te33, 36
tezzre 71
ti, see ti(n)
tiberiuss, ty- 76
ti(n) 20—3, 81
tiss 106
to 37, 38, 387, 85, 100
tohh(t) 89
to wisse 9
tredenn, -edd I9
trigg 10, II
trowwpess 15
tu 106
tuge 104
tun, -e 8, 9
tunnderrstanndenn 38!
turrtless 98
twa 67
Google
115
twellf, -e 51, 52, 67, 82
twellfte 51, 52. 82
pa 84, 88, 89, 106, 106!
per (dzr) 86, 106, 106"
perto, ter- 80!
pzrpurrh 35
pankess 92
pan(n) 68%, 92
pan(n)e 67, 68, 687, 80, 106
pat(t) 88, 89, 92, 106, 106?
pe 78, 106
pe boc 40—42, 42°, 44—49,
62, 67, 77, 78, 81, 82, 101,
103
pe goddspell 41, 42, 49, 49'
pehhtennde 68
p(e)ode, -ss 15, 17
pe(o)s 74
pe(o)ww, -ess 49, 62—65
per 102
perrrf- 94
perrto 80!
pess te 106
pepennfor(r)p, tepenn- 93!
pewwlic, -ke, -liz 31
pew(w)tenn, -edd 18, 92
pe3z3re, -ss 14, 70—72, 76, 107
pi (subst.) 104
pi(n) 20—23, 24', 26, 27, 75,
78
pin, -e 8, 13, 14
ping 103
piss 106
pohh 39
pohhte 39
prazhe 51, 52
preo 75
prittene 52
116
pritten(n)de 51, 52, 80, 82
pu 106
purh(-) (purth) 72, 92, 102,
103
purrh patt 35
puss 79, 84, 100
putenn, -edd 19
pweort 92
uendentess 102
uienne 57
uipera 57
ungewisses 14'
unnderrfétt 102
-unng 6
unnorrne 93
unnsezhennlic, -ke 31
unnse33(3)enndlic, -ke, -liz 31,
unnshadi(3)nesse 25
unnskapefull 79
unntill 37
unnbewedd 18
unnwemeddnesse 92
unnwresste 93‘
uppo(nn) 21, 23—25, 25", 107
us 92
-us(s) 76
uss dide(nn) 106
utenn wibp 74
ut(t) XL',93
wal(l)de 88, 94
wallterr 58, 59, 597, gI
war 73}
was(s)t 93, 93°
wat(t) 80, 88
wehhte (off sillferr) 104
wel ‘pit’ 15, 15°, 61
Google
wel(l) (adv.) xL?, 41,
84, 101
welle 9, 158
wenenn, wennde 98
weorelldlike, -liz 31
wereld 92
wessh, -enn 81
wesste 934
whan(n)e 68, 68?
wharrfenn 33, 34
w(h)arrp 70, 89
w(h)att, wat 102, 103
whillke 36
whilwendlic, -ke 31
wicche crafftess 15!
wif(f) 89, 93
wifmann(-), -menn(-) 19,
66, 78
wil), -e 7, 52
wimmann-, -menn- Ig, 20, 66,
69, 78
winenn 92
winnterr 17
wirrsenn 73'
wiss, -e 9, 84
wisslikess bingess 14!
witerr(like) 30, 31
witess 37
wite3(h)unnge 15, 94
witt (subst.) 52, 96
wit(t) (verb) 41, 101, 102
wittness 6
wib(p) 64, 102
wibpinnenn 64
wipbutenn 64, 74
wor(r)d, -e 9, 87, 93, 94
wrappe 64
wrappenn, -edd 18, 64
wrezhenn 94
56, 67,
20,
117
-wrihte 66, 92 zehatenn 105
writt, write 9, 43 3emenn 39
wrohte 92 zeorrmmesse 72
wunnderrlike, -liz 31 zeress 17
wurrplike 100 3err(n)de 106
wurrppenn 37, 93 Zerme 93
wurpi 102 zerrsalem 24%, 103
ysayas 37, 76 zho 14, 89, go, 95
zacarias(s), -i3e 56, 57, 76, 79,
giferr(-) 28, 29, 73
3iferrnesse 28, 2817, 29, 96
80
iff 25,
zacharias 56, 57, 102 a ae 39
zacheus 57 — pifteunng 29.43
zakarias(s), -i3e 56, 57, 76, 79 Minti .
3zfe(n) 28) zunnkerr 36
es gure 14, 35, 71, 72
vw ve vw
»
Addenda et corrigenda.
2, 1. 8 from top, for Azmmsellf (twice) read himm sellf.
3,1 9 » » , derrp; cf. Zenke p. 16 footn.
20, 1. 16 » bottom: «That is obviously the reason why
it has so often been overlooked by W. and H.» It
may be added that in 30 of the instances given 2 has
been printed in W.’s edit. but then removed in H.’s.
34, 1. 15 from top, for yospels read Gospels.
54, footn. 3, 1. 4 from bottom, for voszmg read rosinng.
61, »Only in foxr such instances is ¢ printed»; add sel/pe
6051; cf. collat.
68, ll. 16—17 from top: only a hundred ll. before = as
far back as a hundred Il.
.108, abut(tjenn, for XXXIX read XL.
109, dutenn, » > > »
110, drok(h), » > Sm Dd,
III, hird, » » » ».
» , hof(f), » » » >.
Google
s edit. ll. 9781—9801).
=
2)
en)
al
n
i>)
°
ee)
3)
o
co
tH
fe)
°
aa)
G
om
8B
~~
*
o
ww
t
<
oe
4H
”
fe
=)
i]
=
Y
é
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
' No. 2.
B.-text (Holt’s edit. ll. 9035—9047).
(MS Junius 1.)
Semon on ' a f) . — at’
aed’, i opt Ant pepe ‘10m ri lyrn jellf.
“ZT at bi uy on wal baw Ww RSS ne Wolbratt:
mn pe Cc on sarge aate ena, RHODE :
<Ace } Fapent haw ull t ie Lane tAlion fam
abe iit L per: TAll bf | rem (eqKde eqodelf galt
ObeSbe-fey peer oypeenn Fo rp he polide-pruyeht
7
pace fl ee Pei mkell prey Uae.
No. 3.
C.-text (Holt’s edit. ll. 7471—7480).
(MS Junius 1.)
Original from
Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Preface
Contents.
Bibliography .
Abbreviations .
Introduction
Collation
I.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Index .
Cartections; in h. B.
Group 1.
a. B-corrections bearing upon accidence .
b. » » » the vocabulary .
c. Stylistic corrections
Group 2 .
Group 3. .
Identification of B.
The spelling ¢o .
The inserted leaves
Corrections in h. A.
1. Text over erasure
2. Erased text .
3. Marginal insertions .
4. Superpositions of. consonants
Doubtful alterations
Hand C. 0 ol
Coireciions in a ‘fourth hs
Addenda et pore zendix
Three Facsimiles
Google
Original from
Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Digitized by Google
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
; ‘ i ae
“” ~ a Ket
7 4 ~amyhS 7
a ci,
—
4
=a
4 '
-
i.
r a 4 ey - oP aS"
Lean
jen “PT?
3 Siders ea) -
' ae : 2 ie
a | * «
:
s 7 - gs 6
* « “a ‘ e = “zl
‘ 7
P °
* ee
= 7 j - ~~
7 ey REL . le a ee
a é
‘ . AP 4,
' wy ; :
ts a fe | Py :
6 ‘4 ‘ =) _ - 7 7) “i es
* ; { MJ o>
7. sae TT) i: abies ‘';*
aon aca
‘ p ay ~ »~& — Pa om i a A hd
he
(O) atelier) mine)an)
___ UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
=
>.
a
oy 7
“tee
Digitized by i @)
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
wils
8220r5 HH
Holm, Sigurd.
Corrections and additions in the O
31
Digitized by \_ C, ( OOS sle MIGERAEATOR ss INNESOTA
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11